TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Russia-Ukraine conflict exposes our global hypocrisies
But the reality of geopolitics, which this conflict is about, is far from black and white, especially if you look back historically.
Change Size
“WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”
These are the opening lyrics of the 1970 song "War!" by Edwin Starr, which at the time was a protest against the Vietnam war. Now, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the song has suddenly become relevant again.
People all around the world have looked on with shock and horror at the unfolding heartbreaking scenes of war and tragedy in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, many have reacted emotionally, especially as we have not even overcome the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic. Non-military facilities in Ukraine have been bombed and hundreds of civilians have been killed, including children. Ten million Ukrainians – almost one quarter of its population – have become refugees, exacerbating the global refugee crisis. Six and a half million are internally displaced.
Many blame Russia, or specifically Vladimir Putin, casting him as a 21st century Hitler or Ras-Putin – with a nuclear arsenal capable of triggering World War III, which would spell the end of the world. But depicting him with a Hitler mustache is a bit juvenile, no?
Volodymir Zelensky, on the other hand, the millennial, is hailed as a hero – certainly an unlikely one – and a modern-day Winston Churchill (1874-1965). But given his unlikely background as a former comedian, maybe he’s more comparable to the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel (1936-2011), a former absurdist playwright and political dissident.
So, Zelensky and Putin are pitted as opposites: democratic vs despotic, loved vs hated, millennial vs late baby boomer, sympathetic entertainer vs hypermasculine show-off – in short, black and white.
But the reality of geopolitics, which this conflict is about, is far from black and white, especially if you look back historically, way back to the Cold War era, which lasted for 44 years (1947-1991). For you young ‘uns out there, it was a period of geopolitical tension between the United States and the then-Soviet Union (USSR) and their respective allies, usually referred to as the Western and Eastern blocks.
Am I being historically nostalgic? Well, if there was ever a time to delve into history, now is it, to think and learn from past mistakes.
But before looking at post-WW II history, let’s look at the reaction of Indonesians to the situation in Ukraine. Insights were provided by Radityo Dharmaputra, in his article titled “Why do so many Indonesians back Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”. Partly because of “a strong anti-American and anti-western attitude [and their] war on terror”.
It is also about likes (strong leaders) and dislikes (American hypocrisy). Fadli Zon, a Gerindra politician and Prabowo Subianto underling, likens Prabowo to Putin in a positive way, also for their nationalist and populist tendencies. Prabowo, is a former presidential candidate and Joko “Jokowi” Widodo's rival in 2014 and 2019, and currently his defense minister.
Another reason for Indonesians' support of the Russian invasion is the majority of Indonesians still think they did the right thing in East Timor (1975-99). They dismiss accounts of atrocities there as Western propaganda and see the “loss of East Timor” as a Western/Australian plot in 1999.
A Western historian friend said: “The level of information available is very low across the board and Indonesia is A Big Zero when it comes to its ability to project its profile/image internationally. So, this is part and parcel of this ignorant, religiously saturated and unthinking default setting of the Indonesian masses." Oops!
Besides the propaganda around the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there have certainly been much more balanced and historical accounts provided by academics and political observers: about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, parallels and references to Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, etc., the fact that the invasion of Ukraine is yet another proxy war, the threat of nuclear war, implications to the world order and certainly Western, especially American, racism and hypocrisy. The London Economic, an alternative media platform originating from a political blog, listed the countries that the US has bombed or interfered in since WW II amounts to 36.
Already in 2015, John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist and international relations scholar, said in his lecture “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault” that Western powers had encouraged Ukraine to be part of the West.
Ukraine is on Russia’s doorstep (sharing a land border of almost 2100 kilometers). Furthermore, Ukraine used to be part of the USSR, so it's no wonder Putin is getting more than the heebie-jeebies about what he feels to be the encroachment of Russian territory and sovereignty. Heaven forbid that Ukraine will inspire Russian citizens to revolt against their 21st-century czar, who is known to poison his political enemies.
Another analyst, Kim Iversen, an American-Vietnamese journalist, is described as one of the most successful and progressive American talk show hosts and YouTubers. Her March 1 YouTube talk is titled “Ukraine-Russia Is REALLY About the Demise of US Hegemony, Petrodollar” – basically, about a new world order.
There is also the analysis of Palki Sharma, Indian journalist, news anchor and editor at World Is One News (WION). She basically takes the same stance as Mearsheimer, that the US pushed Russia to invade Ukraine. Her newscast on Tuesday was called “Russia turning Ukraine into Europe's Syria? Will Mercenaries assassinate Zelensky?” Yikes!
The most recent interview I listened to was by Rania Khalek, a Lebanese-American writer and political activist, interviewing Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American journalist, one of the founders of the Electronic Intifada online publication in 2001, which covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Palestinian perspective. The 1 hour 25 minute-interview is titled “Ukraine War Exposes US Hypocrisy, Double Standards & Racism." Right, no beating about the bush there.
While it is true that there is a long history of hypocrisy and war crimes by the US, it should not be used to justify what Putin is doing. NATO expansion happened partly because Eastern European nations (former Soviet countries) did not want to be under the Russian sphere of influence.
Putin saw the Arab Spring revolts and was alarmed that such things might happen in Russia (hence his backing of Assad in Syria). He was even more concerned when people power occurred in Ukraine in 2014. As a KGB man who experienced the collapse of the Soviet empire, he was likely shaped by fear of people power. People making content along the lines of "America bad, therefore, Russia not so bad" is music to Putin's ears.
In the meantime, it’s the people of Ukraine who suffer. There is an Indonesian saying: “When elephants fight each other, the mousedeer dies in the middle." This is always the case with proxy wars, not just in Ukraine, but also in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, for example.
Russia is now being accused of committing war crimes. But as Noam Chomsky said, “For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.”
If I may cite another Indonesian elephant proverb: “The elephant perched on one’s eyelids is not visible, but the ant across the ocean is clearly visible." The fault of others is so visible even when far away, but we are so blind to our own.
***
The writer is director of the Gender and Democracy Center, LP3ES.
***
The writer is director of the Gender and Democracy Center, LP3ES.
