Dr. Kamal Hamidou
Lately, the global media have been spreading concerns about the outbreak of a third world war, the stakeholders thereof would be Russia on one side and the United States of America along with its NATO allies on the other. The arena of this war would be Ukraine and the European continent, if said war takes the traditional form of confrontation; or the entire northern part of the globe from east to west in case either of the parties finds itself obliged to use nuclear weapons.
These fears have been reinforced by the escalation in the tone the leaders of the concerned countries are using, in a precedent that has not occurred since the days of terror the world faced at the height of the crises that humanity has experienced during the Cold War Period. This is especially true after US President Joe Biden himself hinted at the possibility of a third World War. The efforts made by the French president after he visited Moscow and Kyiv, which President Vladimir Putin approached with certain coldness, made observers predict the failure of these peace efforts. Therefore, is the world truly heading towards a military confrontation between the great powers? Or is this crisis nothing more than simple political cards that each party uses to reposition its pawns on the world map?
To understand this conflict and its possible developments, it is necessary to understand the origins of its sudden emergence in the international media and diplomatic arena, to become the most important subject of the media and diplomatic agendas in various international media and various diplomatic institutions around the world.
One must also go back in time to analyze the process taken by similar major crises that occurred in the past between the Eastern Bloc led by the Soviet Union (at the time, Moscow was at the height of its power), and the Western bloc led by the United States of America (which was then at the height of its ambition to maintain its hegemony on the world). Indeed, humanity has experienced a crisis with a scale of dangers never reached by the current one, whether militarily, diplomatically, or in the media. We are talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis that erupted in 1962 when American aerial surveillance photos allowed for the discovery of nuclear missiles aimed at American territory and the island of Cuba, then an ally of the Soviet Union. This aggressive act placed the American territory within the range of these missiles. At that time, this crisis was marked by shuttle visits by mediators and diplomats representing governments and international organizations. All of them made great efforts to calm a situation which at the time was reaching the highest levels of dangerousness, with military developments leading to dangerous naval and air operations, as well as the skirmishes between the two armies, causing the downing of military aircraft and damage to ships and submarines during the mutual surveillance operations.
In the end, and after a process of arm wrestling and the mutual pulse-taking between the two parties, US President Robert Kennedy and Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev appealed to the reason. The United States of America has pledged not to repeat the process of the Bay of Pigs naval landing that took place in 1961 in an attempt to overthrow the regime in Cuba, paving the way for the crisis of 1962. In exchange, the Soviet President committed to withdrawing nuclear missiles installed on Cuban soil.
The crisis of 1962 was a matter of vital space and national security for the US government, just as the crisis of Donbas in Ukraine is today. If we contemplate the political geography of the Eastern European region since Mikhail Gorbachev announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the eighties of the last century, we can notice how the borders of the NETO alliance extended to the east and how the vital space of Russia was eroded progressively. This is done in such a systematic and aggressive way to Russia that the leader of the former Soviet empire cannot tolerate it.
Moreover, the West and NATO have not fulfilled their obligations to post-Soviet Russia, which has repeatedly demanded not to expand NATO to the East, which could endanger the Russian vital space and its national security. We then see that the same Cuban missile test is repeated in Ukraine, by reversing the roles this time: it is Russia that is threatened in its geographical depth and its vital field, and the West is at the origin of the threat, despite what Western media and politics claim that Russia is the one launching the threat against Ukraine. Ukraine, like Georgia before, presently represents for Russia what Cuba represented for the US Nation in 1962. Therefore, compared to what happened in the past, we might think that the world is safe from any nuclear war, however tense the situation between the different parties may be. The United States of America realizes in fact that Ukraine is in Russia’s vital space, even if the Ukrainian regime is hostile to Russia. Also, it is highly unlikely that the United States will intervene militarily in Ukraine, despite NATO’s threats to do so.
Most likely, the Georgian scenario will repeat itself; when Georgian government forces attacked the pro-Russian separatist forces in South Ossetia, prompting Russian forces to intervene militarily in 2008, imposing a buffer zone inside Georgian soil, thus preserving its desirable vital space. In our analysis, at most, the same scenario will repeat itself in Ukraine. If the efforts to neutralize Ukraine from NATO fail, Russia will intervene in Donbas to establish its vital space inside Ukrainian soil. In this action, Russia will use conventional weapons - unless a major conflict is started if NATO’s forces intervene in the conflict - in an operation that will be fast and limited, so faces will be saved, and everyone will be satisfied to preserve the world from a destructive conflict. Thus, the crisis will end as soon as Russia’s patience and reaction are being tested, and once the West realizes the importance of accepting the importance for Russia to agree with her on new arrangements and cards redistribution in terms of vital space and Russian national security.
The only difference between the two crises lies in the post-crisis situation. The big loser will be Europe, which, with its positions dependent on the United States of America, has pushed the Russian bear to direct its ties towards China. In addition, Russia will act towards reforming new alliances to limit the risks of the NATO alliance. This will undoubtedly lead to redistributing the geopolitical cards in the world, especially that Russia, like other major or emerging powers, will need alliances to find ways to reduce the impact of the coming economic sanctions by the United States of America and the European Community.
Dr. Kamal Hamidou is Associate Professor of Media and former Head of the Department of Mass Communication at Qatar University
