What started as a political tug-of-war between Europe and Russia in a square in Ukraine (Euromaidan) now has the potential of becoming a major international conflict that may pitch the world’s largest military powers against each other.

The unrest in Ukraine began in November 2013 when Viktor Yanukovych refused to heed demands by the opposition for greater economic integration with Europe. Mr Yanukovych instead preferred an alliance with Russia. Soon the campaign for integration with Europe became a mass movement against the government of Mr Yanukovych, who in February fled Kiev. While many in Ukraine preferred an alliance with Europe, the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, such as Crimea, continued to pledge allegiance to mother Russia.

The March 16 referendum in Crimea, which some Europeans and North American governments considered rigged, revealed overwhelming support for Crimea to join Russia. The Crimean Parliament on March 17 declared independence from Ukraine and requested to join the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin swiftly announced the annexation of Crimea with Russia. Since this announcement, alarm bells and war drums have started to sound across the Atlantic.

Also read: Ukraine war already in full swing in cyberspace

Europeans and Americans are fuming over the Russian move to annex Crimea. Many believe that Russia has gone too far. There is, however, one small problem. Crimea is in Russia’s backyard and many Crimeans have strong historic ties with Russia. It is perhaps natural for Russia to be concerned about Crimea the way it was natural for Iran to be concerned about neighbouring Iraq or for Pakistan to be concerned about Afghanistan.

The European and American combat narrative sounds very similar to their earlier criticism of Iran and Pakistan for ‘meddling’ in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. One finds two limitations with such thinking. First, Nato member states erroneously believe in a global uninhibited reach for their militaries across continents. Second, the Europeans yet again fail to resolve intra-European conflicts, remember Bosnia and Kosovo, which facilitates American intervention into European conflicts.

Also read: Ukrainian or Russian? Language gets political in Ukraine

The Europeans and North Americans are critical of Russia’s military presence in Crimea, terming it an invasion. Russia shot back by pointing out the absence of a military conflict despite its heavy military presence in Crimea. I wonder why the Nato states are critical of Russia when they did the same in Iraq.

The Middle East falls in the backwaters of neither the US nor the UK. The claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction proved wrong. While I, for one, am relieved to see the demise of the Baathist regime in Iraq, I still do not support the notion that the end justify the means.

The US and UK have not responded with full-fledged economic sanctions against Russia. Instead, certain Russia-aligned officials in Ukraine have been the target of American and British sanctions. Many wonder if more intrusive sanctions will follow the rather mute sanctions to date. However, given the globally integrated economy in which business interests crisscross the now defunct ideological boundaries, the chances of severe economic sanctions against Russia remain bleak.

One must remember that while their political interests may appear to be at odds, their business interests are not. Hiding behind the US-Russian saber rattling are the economic realities of international trade and investments that tie the fortunes of several American business conglomerates to what transpires in Russia. According to a report by Ernst & Young, American firms are the biggest foreign investors in Russia. GE Capital Aviation Services, a subsidiary of General Electric Co., has leased over 50 planes in Russia. With strict US sanctions, these planes and the aspirations for profits for several American firms will be grounded for an uncertain period.

Also read: Let Georgia be lesson for Ukraine

However, that is unlikely to happen. Already, Washington is witnessing significant influence peddling by business interests who are advising the US government to practice restraint. No fewer than a 100 chief executive officers of large American corporations have already requested a meeting with US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel to advise him of their concerns. “The CEOs are obviously very concerned about what is happening in Russia,” said a spokesperson representing the American businesses.

However, business interests are not merely confined to forays in civil aviation. A recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) revealed that the US and Russia continue to be the world’s largest international arms exporters. The US with 29 per cent of the global arms export market and Russia with 27 per cent of the market stood first and second respectively. Both Russia and the US rely on armed conflicts across the globe to sustain their respective military industrial complexes. For the US, the wars in the Middle East and elsewhere support its war economy. Russia has its own favourite conflicts that support the Russian war machine.

Ukraine, Kosovo, Iraq, and Egypt are examples of conflicts that generate the demand for weapons sold by manufacturers in the US, Russia, and China.

These conflicts on surface may appear as desperate acts of self-determination staged by the ‘freedom starved’ masses in open theatres marketed as Tahrir Square or Euromaidan. At the end of the day, thousands die while weapons manufacturers amass greater wealth.