… again, we are making a strawman argument. It’s not about who is standing on a better moral ground or who is sitting on a sounder economic footing between the West and Russia. It’s about the fact that Russia attacked a sovereign nation, doing what she considers best to make her stronger and more prosperous.
On February 24, Russian troops invaded Ukraine, resulting in a major escalation of conflict between the two countries and the setting off the biggest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. At the time of writing this piece, thousands have died and both sides have sustained serious casualties. As a fall out of this tragedy, an estimated three million Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes and into another country, triggering an unprecedented refugee crisis.
In the events leading up to the invasion, President Putin accused the United States (U.S.) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) of threatening Russia’s security by expanding eastward and claimed that Ukraine is being dominated by neo-Nazis, who he said were persecuting the Russia-speaking minority in the country.
It’s important to note that the man leading the group being accused of prosecuting a neo-Nazi agenda is no other than President Volodymyr Zelensky, being Jewish and yet a native Russian speaker. But none of these mattered to Putin and the Kremlin power structure. In 2021, Russia began a massive build up of military assets along its Ukrainian border, in preparation for an invasion, a charge which it denied up until the night prior to the invasion.
On the morning of February 24, Russian missiles rained over Kiev, the Ukraine capital, followed by a multi-pronged large ground invasion, in what Putin called a special military operation to demilitarise and “denazify” Ukraine.
Granted that Russia has a legitimate reason to be concerned, should Ukraine join NATO, the latter had equally demonstrated unwillingness to extend its membership to Ukraine in deference to Russia’s voiced concerns. That said, Ukraine as a sovereign country is within its rights to purse strategic relationships – military, economic or political – with any group it chooses to align with, in pursuit of its national interest. That is what Russia and every other independent nation do all the time.
With one of the strongest military forces in the world, supported by one of the largest nuclear arsenals that boasts of over 6000 warheads, Russia is heavily fortified and knows that the West will do everything humanly possible to avert an armed confrontation with it. Doing otherwise would, without doubt, result in mutually assured destruction, which no one desires. But Putin had other reasons for invading Ukraine.
The straw man argument is about the construction of a second argument that tends to resemble, to a certain degree, the one that the opponent is wanting to make. Most often, however, the distorted interpretation is only remotely related to the original claim. The perverted argument may just focus on one aspect of the claim, exaggerate it or take it totally out of context. Those are logical fallacies which are not alien to polemical debates…
The Kremlin believes that Russia will never become a consequential global power without exerting control over Ukraine. There is also the idea that a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is a threat to the current authoritarianism in Russia and may inspire a whole generation of dissenting voices that could demand changes in the way things are done.
As despicable as Russia’s action is in invading her smaller neighbour killing and maiming innocent citizens, one would have thought the whole world would rise up with one voice and in total condemnation of such predatory and barbaric behaviour Not really. There are some very intelligent minds applauding Russia’s actions and blaming Ukraine for daring to chart her own course. The basis of their support for Russia is premised on the notion that NATO countries like the United States had caused even worse atrocities in the past than whatever Russia is doing currently in Ukraine. Even when that may be the case, should Ukrainians be left to be murdered in their homes simply because Russia is not doing anything worse than what the West had done in the past?
Instead of rallying in support of Ukraine, these people are busy attacking the strawman.
The straw man argument is about the construction of a second argument that tends to resemble, to a certain degree, the one that the opponent is wanting to make. Most often, however, the distorted interpretation is only remotely related to the original claim. The perverted argument may just focus on one aspect of the claim, exaggerate it or take it totally out of context. Those are logical fallacies which are not alien to polemical debates, especially the one about highly charged emotional subjects.
But for the sake of this piece, let’s even consider the relationship between NATO and Russia. There is this argument being made that if the West really wanted to pursue global peace, NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. What proponents of this line of thought believe is that if NATO had gone the way of Warsaw, Russia would today have no issues to worry about and that meant the invasion of Ukraine could have potentially been avoided. That’s just a gross over-simplification of facts.
What many might be ignoring is the fact that after the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1991, Russia and a few other countries of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) joined China in the Shanghai Coorperation Organisation (SCO), also called the Shanghai Pact. SCO is a transcontinental security, economic and political alliance regarded as the world’s largest regional organisation. Russia did not just go home and suck it up, it went into a larger pact with China and others.
Military exercises are also regularly conducted among member states of the SCO in order to maintain regional peace and stability, as well as promote cooperation against terrorism and external threats. It’s equally important to note that the Warsaw Pact did not dissolve because Russia was extending an olive branch to the West out of sheer benevolence. The pact crumbled because USSR, which was the glue holding the union, unraveled in 1991.
Most of these nations feel threatened by Russia and are all flocking to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), seeking to protect themselves against a belligerent neighbour Starting with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary in 1999, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania followed in 2004, and Albania in 2009. That’s exactly the same thing Ukraine wants, not to threaten Russia but to pursue her own growth and development as a nation.
America and Europe sure loved that Warsaw Pact collapsed, just like you would rejoice when your enemy runs into problems. But thinking they caused the collapse of the Warsaw Pact is like blaming the wind for the collapse of a house built on a faulty foundation. That would be giving the West too much credit. Communism was defeated because what it teaches went against the nature of man and every other institution that it propped up collapsed when it couldn’t stand anyomore. It’s been called the most bogus human experiment in history.
Russia is lashing out because, after the collapse of the USSR, many of the nations that were part of the old communist alliance no longer saw a future in authoritarianism and therefore gravitated towards liberal democracy, as practiced in the West. The latter is far from perfect but has proven over time to be a more sustainable political model that guarantees more peace and prosperity, while delivering a better quality of life than what obtained under the yoke of communism.
Most of these nations feel threatened by Russia and are all flocking to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), seeking to protect themselves against a belligerent neighbour Starting with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary in 1999, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania followed in 2004, and Albania in 2009. That’s exactly the same thing Ukraine wants, not to threaten Russia but to pursue her own growth and development as a nation.
Russia and Putin need to have a deep introspection on why all their former friends and allies are abandoning them and seeking new friendships with the West. Maybe it has to do with the old saying that if you make better mousetraps, the world would beat a path to your door. The West offers peace, opportunities and progress to her citizens. Russians, on the other hand, are served with Putin’s extremely corrupt and repressive regime that favours the oligarchs and poisons or assasinates opposition figures.
Ukraine should be allowed to choose her friends. I do know that if given an option to decide between St. Petersburg and New York, on where to live and raise a family, those blaming Ukraine would choose the latter.
But again, we are making a strawman argument. It’s not about who is standing on a better moral ground or who is sitting on a sounder economic footing between the West and Russia. It’s about the fact that Russia attacked a sovereign nation, doing what she considers best to make her stronger and more prosperous.
Osmund Agbo, a public affairs analyst is the coordinator of African Center for Transparency and Convener of Save Nigeria Project. Email: Eagleosmund@yahoo.com
Support PREMIUM TIMES' journalism of integrity and credibility
Good journalism costs a lot of money. Yet only good journalism can ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.
For continued free access to the best investigative journalism in the country we ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.
By contributing to PREMIUM TIMES, you are helping to sustain a journalism of relevance and ensuring it remains free and available to all.
TEXT AD: Call Willie - +2348098788999
