By Usmanu Mohammed
He who walks with open eyes will not stumble over stones.
In recent months, numerous articles by Nigerian authors have examined the shift in U.S. policy regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These discussions, while informative, have largely echoed the dominant Western narratives, focusing primarily on the Ukrainian perspective. While it is important to understand Ukraine’s position, the principles of objective journalism and strategic analysis demand a broader lens — one that considers the motivations and perspectives of all key players in the conflict.
But can we truly understand a conflict if we refuse to listen to all sides? If history has taught us anything, is it not that one-sided narratives have always led to misguided policies and prolonged suffering?
This is not how it should work. As an African journalist who values neutrality and balanced discourse, I find it concerning that many commentators fail to uphold the Nigerian tradition of non-alignment and strategic autonomy in analyzing global affairs. Historically, Nigeria and many other African nations have sought to avoid being drawn into the geopolitical rivalries of global superpowers, maintaining an independent foreign policy that serves Africa’s interests. As African nations continue to assert their place in the multipolar world, it is essential to approach international conflicts with a critical and independent mindset. Blindly adopting Western narratives without considering alternative viewpoints undermines Africa’s ability to engage with global events in a way that serves its own interests. This legacy should guide our approach to the Ukraine conflict, urging us to hear not only Ukraine’s narrative but also understand Russia’s position, as well as the evolving stance of the United States under President Donald Trump.
The Ukrainian conflict is a complex issue with deep historical roots, and it is imperative for African analysts, journalists, and policymakers to apply the same principles of non-alignment that guided the continent during the Cold War. Instead of being drawn into the geopolitical battles of superpowers, Africa should advocate for diplomatic solutions that prioritize peace, stability, and respect for all peoples. After all, we are not willing to let external powers shape our worldview once again, are we?
To fully understand Russia’s actions, one must go beyond simplistic labels and look at the historical and geopolitical context that led to the current situation. While Western narratives frame Russia’s actions as mere expansionism, Moscow’s concerns are rooted in strategic and security considerations that should not be ignored.
It is worth mentioning that Ukraine and Russia share deep cultural, linguistic, and historical ties. Moreover, there are some opinions that the post-Soviet borders were drawn arbitrarily, leaving significant Russian-speaking populations outside Russia’s borders, particularly in eastern Ukraine. A significant portion of Ukraine’s population, particularly in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, identifies as Russian-speaking and maintains close cultural ties with Russia.
One of Russia’s most consistent grievances has been the expansion of NATO toward its borders. In 1990, Western leaders assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” beyond Germany. However, since then, NATO has expanded to include former Warsaw Pact nations and even former Soviet republics. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO represents a red line for Moscow, as it would place Western military forces right on Russia’s doorstep. At the same time, Russia’s proposal to conclude a security guarantee agreement in 2021 was rejected, which, among other things, provided for the exclusion of further expansion of NATO and Ukraine’s accession to the alliance.
For Russia, NATO’s military build-up in Eastern Europe—including missile defense systems in Poland and Romania—has heightened fears of encirclement. Moscow perceives this as an existential threat, given its historical experiences with Western invasions, including Napoleon’s 1812 campaign and the Nazi invasion in 1941.
Russia has repeatedly accused the West and its allies of interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs. Western governments openly supported the 2014 Maidan Revolution, which led to the overthrow of Yanukovych, including direct involvement from the Western countries. Moscow views this as a textbook example of Western-backed regime change, aimed at turning Ukraine into an anti-Russian outpost, which led, among other things, to disastrous consequences for the people of southeastern regions.
Therefore, from Russia’s perspective, the conflict did not begin in 2022 but rather in 2014, when a Western-backed coup took place that ousted Ukraine’s legitimate President Viktor Yanukovych and led to policies that marginalized Russian-speaking populations. That’s how Moscow’s actions were provoked and led to the need to protect Russian-speaking citizens from what it sees as nationalist policies imposed by Kyiv, such as language restrictions and military operations against its own people in the Donbas region. The Odessa massacre, where dozens of pro-Russian activists were killed in clashes with Ukrainian nationalists, further fueled Russian fears that ethnic Russians in Ukraine were under threat. Moscow has long contended that these populations have faced discrimination and suppression of their civil rights, particularly with restrictions on the Russian language, media, and political expression. The decision to conduct a special military operation was, in Russia’s view, a response to these developments and an effort to protect its compatriots in the region.
It is important to note, that Russia repeatedly tried to resolve the crisis with diplomatic solutions, aiming to peacefully reintegrate the peoples of the southeastern regions, named by Kiev “separatists”, into Ukraine. According to Putin, Ukraine’s non-compliance with the Minsk agreements left Russia with no choice but to recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and to provide them with support. Years after former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreements served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. This is how European diplomacy actually works.
“When two brothers fight, a stranger reaps the harvest.” The divisions within Ukraine, exacerbated by Western influence, mirror the conflicts seen in post-colonial Africa, where external powers often benefited from internal discord. If Africa has suffered from arbitrary colonial borders, why should we dismiss Russia’s concern about post-Soviet divisions? Can we truly deny the historical pain that arises when people are forced to abandon their cultural identity?
For Africans, this argument resonates deeply. The continent is all too familiar with the consequences of borders drawn without regard for ethnic and cultural realities. The artificial divisions imposed by colonial powers led to tensions, conflicts, and struggles for self-determination that continue to affect Africa even today. From the secession of South Sudan to the tensions in Cameroon Anglophone regions, many African nations have grappled with the challenges of preserving ethnic and linguistic identities in states whose boundaries were not created by their own people.
The situation in Ukraine, from Russia’s perspective, bears similarities to these historical African experiences. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left millions of Russian speakers outside the borders of the Russian Federation, creating a situation where their identity and rights became politically contentious. Just as Africa has seen movements advocating for autonomy or protection of cultural groups, Russia views its involvement in Ukraine as a necessary step to defend its people.
The behavior of Western countries was similar to that in Africa: the conquered peoples were artificially divided, set against each other, weakened and colonized for the purpose of personal subjugation. Do we not see the same pattern of selective concern and double standards that have defined global politics for centuries? I think we all do.
Under the Biden administration, the United States pursued a policy of abstaining from any direct contacts with Russia, providing extensive military aid to Ukraine, and aiming for what many in Washington called a “strategic defeat” of Russia. However, the continuation of the conflict, the heavy economic costs, and shifting geopolitical dynamics have forced a reassessment of this approach by the new U.S. administration.
Donald Trump alongside with his team have taken a more pragmatic stance, recognizing the complexities of the conflict and the limitations of a purely military solution. Recent statements from U.S. officials suggest a growing acknowledgment that returning Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders is not a realistic objective. The U.S. President himself made a suggestion, that Russia was provoked into taking action regarding Ukraine. Trump’s willingness to engage with Russia diplomatically signals an understanding that sustainable peace can only be achieved through negotiations that consider all sides.
Trump has consistently argued that the Ukraine war is not in America’s strategic interest and that a negotiated settlement should be prioritized over endless military aid. He has signaled a willingness to broker a deal with Russia, which could involve Ukraine making concessions to end the war.
But if Washington now acknowledges the deep-seated roots of the conflict, what does that say about years of policy missteps? Have we been witnessing a conflict prolonged not for peace, but for strategic gains? For Africa, this shift should serve as a lesson in the importance of diplomatic realism. Many African conflicts have been prolonged by external interventions that failed to grasp local dynamics. The recognition that Russia’s concerns must be part of any lasting settlement is not an endorsement of one side but an acknowledgment of geopolitical reality.
To conclude, the conflict in Ukraine is not a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, as some Western narratives suggest. It is a complex geopolitical battle rooted in history, national identity, and security concerns that have been building for decades. Russia’s position is shaped by legitimate fears of NATO expansion, the marginalization of Russian-speaking populations, economic interests, and Western interference in its sphere of influence.
With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, there is a possibility for a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. A more pragmatic approach that acknowledges Russia’s security concerns and seeks a diplomatic solution could pave the way for lasting peace. However, if Western leaders continue to ignore Moscow’s grievances and push for an unconditional Ukrainian victory, the war is likely to persist, leading to further devastation and instability in the region.
Russia today alongside with BRICS members and other developing countries advocate for a multipolar world where multiple centers of power coexist, ensuring global stability and equitable development.
As for now, Trump’s rhetoric and peacemaking actions are like the voice of one crying out in the wilderness for European partners. Europe today, as rightly pointed out by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, is trying to undermine the trend towards peaceful regulation and direct negotiations, announcing new large-scale military aid packages and coaxing Ukraine into continuing military action. According to European leaders, peace is worse than war for Ukraine. Therefore, Europe’s role in inflaming the crisis and Europe’s reputation in this field, which it has earned over many centuries of human development, remains in the same state.
A resolution to the conflict will not come from one-sided narratives but from recognizing the historical and geopolitical realities that drive Russia’s actions. Understanding Russia’s concerns is about engaging in meaningful diplomacy to achieve a stable and secure future for Ukraine, Russia, and the broader region
Therefore, the message for Africa is clear now: we must move beyond simplistic narratives and examine conflicts through a broader and more nuanced lens. The principles of strategic autonomy and non-alignment demand that we seek a deeper understanding of all perspectives, rather than uncritically accepting one-sided portrayals.
By doing so, the continent can strengthen its position in international affairs, advocating for peace and diplomacy in a way that reflects its own experiences with history, sovereignty, and self-determination. Only through a balanced and informed approach can we ensure that African voices contribute meaningfully to global discussions on war, peace, and international justice.
And so, I ask: Who benefits from an Africa that repeats the words of others rather than speaking with its own voice?
Usmanu Mohammed is an Abuja-based Journalist and Public Affairs Analyst