How important is it to see the world through your own eyes, rather than embracing the reading of others? With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the news, magazines and social networks were flooded by the subject. In a short time, expressions of consternation and empathy with those affected emerged in Brazilian society and in other Latin American countries.
It also didn’t take long for critics to point out that there are other wars that haven’t received the same attention or commotion. Yemen, Syria, the Central African Republic, as well as socio-economic conflicts in Latin America were often used as examples of selectivity. Of course, every feeling of solidarity should be welcomed, even if it doesn’t happen on every occasion. However, it is worth asking why the war in Ukraine has a greater impact on part of society than other conflicts, including some that occur daily within the countries themselves or in the region? Do we see the world with eyes borrowed from Europe or the United States?
Compared to these aforementioned conflicts, the war in Ukraine has evident differences. It would be a mistake not to recognize the specifics of what is happening. For starters, it involves Russia, which is a military and nuclear power, which gives greater destructive potential to this clash. Vladimir Putin’s decision to put the nuclear arsenal on alert suggests that an attack with weapons of mass destruction is not that far off.
There is also a powerful symbolic weight to the Russian-Ukrainian clash. The recent events rekindle the memory of the Cold War, which is clearly still alive in the collective imagination, even though the collapse of the Soviet Union took place over 30 years ago. In this way, all the stereotyped propagandist images and readings that describe the struggle between good and evil emerge. In addition, the ghost of communism is curiously still latent in the ideological disputes in the regional and national political scene in the 21st century.
The debates on the invasion of Ukraine in the Brazilian case
The specifics mentioned are important and help to understand how Brazilians see the conflict. But it is still insufficient. How to explain the predominance of analyzes that blame Russia almost exclusively for the war? Or the effort to demonize Vladimir Putin? And the victimization of Europe? Little is said about the European action of insistently encouraging and promoting parties, institutions and movements that were opposed to the rapprochement with the Russians. In December 2013, when the Ukrainian government decided on a trade agreement with Russia, to the detriment of the European Union, the uprisings that took over the country were influenced by Western countries.
This bias is also verifiable in the analysis of some experts. We insist on readings that Russia is isolated, when it is not. The 35 countries that abstained or the 4 that besides Russia (Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria) voted against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russian actions hold more than 50% of the planet’s population.
Some say we are seeing the end of a world order. As we know, a world order is composed of values, principles, rules and institutions that determine the behavior considered appropriate for international actors. The war in Ukraine is the result of a pattern of Russian behavior that clashes with another pattern of behavior: the expansion of Western influence and its institutions in the former Soviet zone of influence. It was like that in Georgia in 2008, in Crimea in 2014 and now in Ukraine.
In addition, the established order has already been challenged on other occasions, such as the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, nuclear proliferation by countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and numerous acts and speeches by Donald Trump when he was in office. of President of the United States. If we don’t talk about a new world order in these episodes, it’s at least curious to enact this change now.
Perhaps it is time to remember that the worldview that prevails in Brazil is not Brazilian. We read the international geopolitical game according to what we were taught. Our perception of the world, principles, values, as well as prejudices and stereotypes reflects a history full of external influences. We attach greater or lesser importance to events according to the interest of other countries and other societies.
In International Relations, there is a structure of knowledge production that makes it difficult for authors from countries with less relative power to create theories. So, we imported concepts, methodologies and readings thought by people in powerful countries to think about their reality. With that, we import ethnocentrism – not ours, but the ethnocentrism of others. This is nothing new, but it is surprising our inability to overcome this barrier. In an increasingly globalized world, the development of a worldview that is Brazilian becomes fundamental for the construction of a country project. We need to get started.
