Democracy and Oil - Should the West go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

Apollodorus

Democracy and Oil - Should the West go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

I don’t know if and to what extent philosophers ought to take an interest in international affairs, but I am starting this thread to see if any light can be thrown on the issue and to find out more about how others view the situation – if they have a view on it, that is.

The current Russia-Ukraine debacle seems to be a puzzle to most people. If the media and politicians are to be believed, it is also threatening to spiral out of control and become a major armed conflict that can have serious consequences not only for world peace but also for the global economy at a time when our economies have already been hit by the pandemic.

The Anglo-American-led Euro-Atlantic region and Russia are two rival spheres of influence that are major actors on the international scene.

The conflict of interest between these two spheres has a long history. It increased during the cold war that followed WW2 and is now becoming a focus of international tension again.

On the Euro-Atlantic side, NATO and the European Union (EU) have been constantly expanding and have now reached Russia’s western border.

Russia says that this poses an unacceptable threat to its national security and wants a buffer zone between itself and EU-NATO. It annexed the Russian-majority Ukrainian region of Crimea in 2014 and it seems determined to annex further parts of Ukraine or even the whole country unless the EU and NATO offer it guarantees that they will not attempt to incorporate it into their own economic, political, and military system.

Russia is a major oil and gas exporter and a convenient energy supplier to Europe which has an interest in getting its supplies from next-door Russia instead of relying on more distant and more unstable places in the Mid-East, for example.

However, US oil and gas corporations and their political allies would prefer to see Europe getting its energy supplies from America. This may make Europe less dependent on Russia but it will make it dependent on America and energy prices are sure to rise for all parties involved, especially for members of the American and European public.

So, like many other conflicts, this one seems to be motivated by a struggle for control over resources such as oil and gas, in addition to official “democracy” and “international law” considerations.

Though initially it was claimed that there was no intention to put Western boots on the ground, NATO forces are already in the region and Biden has put 8,500 troops on alert for possible deployment. Britain and others may follow which means that the situation may turn into something much bigger, after all.

What compounds the problem is that Western pressure on Russia may force Russia to ally itself with China, strengthening China’s power at a time when it is already becoming a serious rival to the West.

How far should the EU and NATO expand?
How should Russia respond to EU and NATO expansion?
How should the West respond to Russian expansion in Ukraine or other former parts of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire?
Should this conflict of interests be resolved by military means?
Who should get Russia's resources if it loses the war?

Deleted User

↪Apollodorus

In a word: No. First of all, there is no "The West." We are all individuals with rights that are not alienable. One of those being the right to your own labor, which the country is going to require - and steal - to fund a campaign on the Eastern front; both in terms of practical labor and taxation of wages. Second, war is only justifiable as a means of defense against a clear and imminent threat to life and liberty; those being threatened as of now are not constituents of the country I call home. Third, war never produces desired outcomes. It delegitimizes the right of states to exist and produces dead humans on a nightmarish scale. As far as the U.S.'s involvement is concerned, the only reasonable time to enter the approaching conflict will be when it is clear that Russia, or allies, seek to destroy the nation.

Apollodorus

↪Garrett Travers

I think in the 21st century humanity ought to have left armed conflict far behind, but I agree that if there is a war the decision should be based on actual threat to the life and liberty of the country that goes to war.

But the idea seems to be that NATO and its allies are some kind of “united Western front against Russian aggression”. It is difficult to see how a Russian invasion of Ukraine threatens America or Britain, and even less “the West” in general. And yet Biden and Boris Johnson seem to be leading the anti-Russian camp.

Johnson has openly announced that “the UK is leading the global response to Russian aggression”.

The reality is that what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO and scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for military “protection” or financial assistance.

From what I can see, Ukraine has got nothing to do with the North Atlantic or with NATO, which raises the possibility (or probability) that the real motives lie elsewhere.

The fact is that the whole concept of Atlanticism and NATO itself were introduced by oil interests. And oil and gas do seem to play a major role in the current controversy.

Interestingly, some are now talking of “regime change” in Russia. I bet US oil corporations and their British associates will move in the minute that happens, as they always do.

And, of course, Biden and Johnson could use a nice war (or prospect of war) to boost their ratings in the polls.

So it seems to boil down to the usual alliance of corporate and political interests that has little to do with democracy.

Democracy and Oil - Should the West go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions