War is an immensely costly business and in all conflicts there are inevitably winners and losers. There is, of course, the cost in terms of lives lost and injuries inflicted. No-one who lived in this country during the Second World War would have been unaware of how much suffering had been endured in the victory over the tyranny of Nazism. Given that this war occurred so soon after the ‘War to end all wars’, the First World War resulting in at least ten million deaths, you’d have thought that world, especially European nations, would have been keener to avoid conflict.
The origins and causes of conflict are frequently complex and multi-dimensional. For instance, the apparently random assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in June 1914 is widely held to have led to the utterly catastrophic and despotic system under Adolf Hitler. Ferdinand’s murder unleashed a wave of imperialism ending in Germany’s surrender in 1918.
This gave rise to what many now contend was the unduly harsh economic terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
READ MORE: {}
The resentment experienced in Germany by poverty created a sense of injustice that allowed Hitler to use his apparent charisma and deluded rhetoric to seduce the nation, convincing them that they would be better off under his National Socialism. As a consequence of Hitler leadership it is estimated that up to 85 million people died.
Whilst the cause of conflict may be a result of a long-standing grievance or injustice – though just as often they are about subjugation and land grab for economic and regional power – some sort of ‘endgame’ will usually emerge.
At the outset, though, what the consequences may be or who will benefit are very murky.
Outsiders attempt to read the ‘game’ and use realpolitik to be associated with the winning side and take advantage.
Stalin, who was as duplicitous as he was murderous, knew his exalted status in 1945 meant he was the unchallengeable ruler of Russia and expand the Soviet empire.
Most Read
Unfortunately many countries were effectively sacrificed, including Poland. That its invasion by Hitler was the spark for war was forgotten and there appeared to be no justice.
Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain experienced hopelessness and abandonment.
Whilst celebrations were taking place elsewhere, such nations were under the ‘jackboot’ of communism.
Nothing, it seemed, could be done short of causing a Third World War.
This would have potentially resulted in the use of nuclear weapons; a vista too awful for even the most strident and war-mongering leaders though a few came close.
Physicist Albert Einstein stated his belief that if such a war did occur the destruction would be so complete that the next one would be fought using sticks and stones!
Sanity prevailed and the eventual collapse of communism was caused by internal dissent in the countries ceded to Russia.
Don’t miss
Eventual freedom came at the price of lives lost by those who dared to challenge corrupt leaders who hypocritically claimed to believe in equality.
What has emerged after perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness) under the enlightened and reforming Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has been instructive.
Sadly many of the countries freed from the tyranny of living under communism have found themselves being subject to rule by leaders no less venal or corrupt.
The current President of Russia Vladimir Putin was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti), its secret service.
Though Putin officially lives on a modest salary, critics argue he cynically used the collapse of communism to garner a personal fortune of at least 70 billion dollars based primarily on oil and gas.
Many Russian billionaires owe their wealth to Putin’s patronage though, as these oligarchs have discovered, woe betide you if challenge his authority; Vladimir Gusinsky, the late Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky being three high profile examples who have incurred his wrath.
It is through the ‘lens’ of Putin’s influence and apparent love of wealth and power that we should view recent events in Kiev.
Ukraine experienced what was known as the ‘Orange Revolution’ in 2004 which followed the ‘Rose Revolution’ of 2003 in Georgia and preceded the 2005 ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan.
As we are discovering, relations with Russia have played a major part in what has gone on in Ukraine.
Following the uprising in 2004 against what was widely believed to the rigged election of Viktor Yanukovych, Viktor Yushchenko became president with his then ally Yulia Tymoshenko becoming prime minister.
Tymoshenko fell out with Yushchenko and in the aftermath of the 2010 election when Yanukovych was elected president, she was convicted of abuse of power and sentenced to seven years imprisonment; a trial that many believed to be flawed.
The apparent downfall of President Yanukovych and release from prison of Tymoshenko means she is widely perceived as being capable of leading Ukraine out of the current conflict. However, she is not without critics. They stress that Tymoshenko is not the paragon of virtue that is required and point out that she made a fortune in the 1990s when she formed United Energy Systems of Ukraine.
This company supplied gas to industry and made Tymoshenko one of the richest people in the Ukraine and earned her the moniker “the gas princess”.
Like many others who made money out of the freedom that came with the end of communism, Tymoshenko wanted power.
She entered politics as part of Yushchenko government of 1999-2001 and oversaw energy reforms that, many suggest, would personally benefit her.
After falling out with Leonid Kuchma who was president, she was arrested on corruption and tax evasion charges though released after a month.
Her critics believe that her condemnation of those who prospered under Kuchma was hypocritical though she remained popular with ordinary Ukrainians who experienced little or no benefit.
Yulia Tymoshenko’s release from prison is one manifestation of recent events in Ukraine.
Whether she becomes the president of Ukraine is open to speculation.
Indeed, some argue that replacing corrupt President Yanukovych with Tymoshenko is hardly sufficient to make up for the sacrifices endured by the protesters on the barricades; especially those killed or seriously injured.
Critics of Tymoshenko think that her record means she is not ‘clean’, and that what Ukraine really needs is someone untainted by the past and able to exhibit absolute integrity.
We all hope for a good outcome for Ukraine.
However, past experience of so called ‘conflict resolution’ suggests that this is not always as straightforward or successful as would be hoped.
Messy and complicated conflicts frequently results in extremely unsavoury leaders. We ‘do business’ with them if it suits geo-political or economic needs.
It is worth remembering that Napoleon Bonaparte stated his belief that “in revolution there are only two sorts of men, those who cause revolutions and those who profit by them”. Sadly, in a maxim that is timeless, Bonaparte also asserted that “the surest way to remain poor is to be honest.”
* Dr Steven McCabe is director of research degrees for Birmingham City Business School