The War in Ukraine
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secy Gen, Assn for Democratic Socialism)
The External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reveals that India is talking to both Ukraine and Russia for a resolution of the conflict and ending the ongoing war. Does this mean that New Delhi is actively playing the role of a peace-broker? It has been long expected of India to give a hand or take the lead in resolving the conflict in Ukraine. This expectation from India stems from India’s foreign policy tradition of neutrality which was called non-alignment and New Delhi’s perceived friendship with Russia; the historical relation with former Soviet Union providing the backdrop.
The recent activism of India’s foreign policy machinery, especially the movement of Prime Minister indicates the possibility of New Delhi getting involved in Ukrainian conflict. Prime Minister has been meeting Russian President Putin, took a bus ride from Warsaw to Kyiv to meet President Zelenskyy. Although his meeting with Zelenskyy did not yield much optimism, as was evident from Zelenskyy’s statements, Modi met the Ukrainian President again on the fringe of Quad and UN meetings. Jaishankar’s occasional statements hinting at India’s role in peace-making lends credibility to the perception of India’s involvement.
No doubt that if India succeeds in bringing an end to the bloody and horrific war in Ukraine, it will signal a precedent for preventing and ending wars elsewhere. The escalation of wars in the Middle-East is a hair-raising scenario for the entire world. So, it is in order that we assess New Delhi’s chances and ability in brokering peace between Ukraine and Russia. India has maintained that the conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations. Jaishankar has been reiterating that the solution to the conflict lies at the negotiating table, not on the battleground. Such an approach is gaining currency among the stakeholders. This is a start for India.
The second variable going for India is that it has a non-partisan image, has good relations with both sides of the conflict. This edifies India as a possible mediator. What are possible terms for negotiation? What would be a just peace acceptable to both sides? Ukraine will expect that final settlement of this war should uphold the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty of independent states. That is also the normative position in lines with the Charter of United Nations. The India-Poland Strategic Partnership Declaration underlined the call for ‘just’ peace. President Zelenskyy, however, would expect the peace negotiations to be based on his 10-point plan.
To fully agree to Zelenskyy’s plan would mean that Russia is brought to the negotiating table from a position of defeat or imminent collapse of his defence. Many observers would argue that this is not realistic. The option is to accept Russia’s terms. The implication of this option is that Ukraine compromises its sovereignty, complicates its reconstruction and risks its existence. Ukraine’s western allies will expect that Russia will not resume its war against Ukraine nor invade any other member of the European Union or NATO. Remember that the Western allies have promised 50 billion dollars more as an aid to Ukraine. It appears they are in no mood to just let Russia run away with victory in Ukraine.
A Russian outright victory will have serious implications for the West, India and the world. One, it will send a message that a big power can openly violate the sovereignty of a smaller country, mainly its neighbour, seize its territory on one pretext or the other and escape with impunity. Such an act would encourage other countries to do the same in complete violation of international norms which India has been advocating.
Second, Russian victory on the battlefield as well as at the negotiating table will strain its relationship with the West, pushing it closer to the arms of China. In trade and commercial terms, without a market in Europe, Russia will become deeply dependent on China. This will go against India’s strategic interest. New Delhi wants a fissure in Sino-Russian alliance. But is likely? New Delhi has to perhaps reconcile to a long-term Sino-Russian partnership except that it is not directed against India’s interest.
Third, Russian victory would undermine the US credibility as a security provider. It would cast an ominous shadow of doubt across the world about the US as a solid partner. In the Indo-Pacific, it may encourage China to be more aggressive. If this scenario is bad enough, what is the other optimistic outcome? Can Ukraine win? It is not impossible. Russia is not invincible. History shows that Moscow has been conquered by the Poles in 1612. The Bolshevik Russian Army was defeated by Poland at the battle of Vistula in 1920. Russia lost a war with Japan in 1905 and to Afghanistan in 1989. So, it is not difficult to defeat Russia with great courage and strong will to fight which the Ukrainians have displayed. They also have the continued support both economic and military from the powerful Western allies.
There is a widespread belief in India and elsewhere that a possible change of leadership in United States after the November elections, the American support to Ukraine might deplete. In that case, Ukraine may not be able to hold much longer against Russia. This is a misconception. The change of leadership in US not resulting in abandoning Ukraine not because Donald Trump has been well-disposed to Putin, but America has deep strategic and security interests in Ukraine. The United States will not like to hand over the victory to the main ally of China which is its principal adversary. The war in Ukraine is helping somewhat the US economy. It is also costing the US far less in blood and treasure than its 20 year engagement in Afghanistan.
Notwithstanding the possible scenarios in ending the war and implications of its continuation, India should strive to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. Organising peace conferences like the one done in Switzerland, will not serve the purpose as it isolates Russia. Any negotiation to be successful, all the immediate stakeholders have to be around the table, certainly Russians and Ukrainians. If New Delhi makes that meeting happen, it would have paved the way for a negotiated settlement of the two-and-half year old war. It is time Prime Minister Modi proves that this is not an era of wars. Given his determination and strength of conviction, he could walk his talk. India’s success even partial in bringing a ceasefire in Ukraine leading to a permanent solution would be a great signal to the world vis-a-vis wars raging in many parts of the world.
India’s message should be, ‘give dialogue a chance’ and ‘embrace peace not war’. The former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has endorsed this in an article in an Indian newspaper while paying his tribute to the apostle of peace Mahatma Gandhi on his birth anniversary on 2 October. It is time to make the world recognise that this message is critical to survival of humanity. — INFA