USA, CHINA, RUSSIA and the Ongoing Churn  in International Affairs

USA, CHINA, RUSSIA and the Ongoing Churn

in International Affairs

Published Net Edition IDR Sep 2024

The Ukraine-Russia war gets curiouser and curiouser as it enters the seventh month. The happenings could well qualify as a comedy, were it not for the tragic consequences: death and destruction in Ukraine, inflation and prospect of a harsh winter in Europe and the inflation and food shortages across the world. The flurry of sanctions on Russia imposed by the USA and EU resulted in maze of buy and sell deals which would surpass even those of Milo Minderbinder of ‘Catch 22’, a character from the satirical war novel by Joseph Heller. The enemies of Russia from the EU are still buying oil and gas at inflated prices, financing Russia’s war effort even as they supply weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. Surprise of surprises is that Ukraine is still receiving gas/oil transit charges in hard currency from Russia for the piped gas supplied through its territory.  Even more bizarre was Saudi Arabia importing oil from Russia at discounted price for domestic use, as it sold its own oil to others at inflated rates. This oil was shipped from Estonia, a NATO member whose leadership pours vitriol on Russia every other day. Russia is now getting close to Iran and Turkey, a NATO member, cooking up new ways to escape sanctions and get the better of USA. Leaves one wondering who is friend and who is foe.

Ukraine is just one theatre of the absurd in the ongoing great game being played out on the world stage. To appreciate the happenings, one needs to step back and view the larger canvas. In the last couple of decades, USA had embarked on a number of ill-advised adventures as the world’s policeman such as Iraq 2003, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan among others. This strategic overreach resulted in economic setbacks, confusion and loss of moral standing. The subsequent withdrawals such as the inglorious exit from Afghanistan left an impression that USA was a fading power, losing its clout and influence. In the interim, USA’s allies in Europe and even in Asia were slowly drifting away from it. It was thus in the fitness of things that USA would attempt to restore its position as the numero uno and dispel doubts about its power and influence. But the US first and foremost needed to get its act together by reviving its old alliances and stitching new ones. Even a powerful nation requires a coalition of likeminded nations to support its bid for leadership, particularly in international institutions which influence security, trade and commerce. Image restoration needed the USA to once again regain its leadership role among its allies and friendly nations and confront the emerging challengers; namely China and a resurgent Russia and target their growing proximity. Ideally the two challengers should be confronted using proxies thus avoiding own boots on the ground. This needed to be accompanied by a display of economic and diplomatic influence which would put the challengers on the backfoot. In short, one is looking at ‘controlled chaos’ as a consequence of these efforts by the USA.

Ukraine’s ongoing confrontation with Russia provided USA an opportunity with minimal risks to entrap Moscow. A drawn-out armed confrontation with Ukraine would leave Russia weakened, thereby adversely impacting its ability to support China. The confrontation would also lead to other favourable outcomes such as strengthening and rearming of NATO, realigning European allies with the US, mobilising EU support to rein in an aggressive China and creating a schism between EU and Russia. USA and its allies would be able to display their economic and diplomatic clout through sanctions. It appeared to be a win-win situation for the USA. There were many ifs and buts and required numerous stars to be in alignment.  But the risks appeared acceptable and so the dice was rolled.

The red flag in the case of Russia was Ukraine becoming a member of NATO- considered as an existential threat by Moscow. Russia has been trapped in an unwinnable war with Ukraine being supported and supplied with arms and intelligence inputs by NATO and USA. While Russia has managed to reduce the impact of the accompanying sanctions, it will be affected in the longer term as EU reduces its dependence on Russian oil and gas.  As the war of attrition between Ukraine and Russia drags on, the outcomes appear to be favouring the USA with NATO reinvigorated and EU members aligning with the USA by imposing sanctions on Russia. The war would sap Russia’s strength and move its focus towards Europe, diminishing its ability to support China.

As regards the death and destruction in Ukraine, the lesser said the better. Ukrainian leadership willingly accepted to play proxy in this war for reasons that go back to the maidan revolution of 2014 and Russian annexation of Crimea. As regards USA’s concern for Ukraine, one is reminded of the admission of its Secretary of Defense, Llyod Austin that, "USA wanted to militarily weaken Russia" and not necessarily to defend Ukraine. Maybe the Ukrainian leadership had also not heard of Henry Kissinger's famous quip, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."  Anyway, it is best left to the beleaguered citizens of Ukraine to seek answers from the current leadership on why it permitted such death and destruction on the country and its citizens.   

While the theatre of the absurd is playing out in Ukraine, the curtains were going up on Act 2 in East Asia. Pursuing its strategy of stitching up alliances the US had along with Japan, India and Australia set up the Quad partnership while repairing its relations with the ASEAN countries with a view of reining in an aggressive China. After getting this act together, US ramped up its confrontation with China with Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan disregarding Chinese objections. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan was akin to a red rag to a bull. An incensed China went ballistic with a series of threatening military exercises of the Taiwan coast. But China did not fall into the trap of initiating an armed invasion of Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s visit was followed by other visits by US congressmen, Japanese delegation and the Governor of a US state keeping up the pressure on China. China was embarrassed by these visits and its aggressive response must have rattled other countries in the neighbourhood, but China was constrained to avoid reacting beyond just a show of force.

Raising the stakes further, India and US plan a joint exercise at high altitude near the LAC in Uttarakhand. Vietnam which has been at the receiving end of Chinese aggression is for the first time planning an exercise with foreign forces, in India. India is participating in an exercise in Australia for which its Su-30 aircraft have flown across, being refuelled by French tankers. While these may appear to be isolated instances, but together they display cooperation among forces inimical to China.  On the diplomatic front, US has managed to get the support of most countries in the Indo-Pacific region.  US has taken the competition in technology seriously as witnessed by the signing of the Chips and Science Act focusing on regaining the edge in frontier technologies.

The new great game will play out over a long period of time with moves and counter-moves by all the actors. USA has initiated a series of actions which would bring about controlled chaos, out of which it expects to emerge in the lead.  But the opponents also have a vote in the ongoing tussle and may affect outcomes. The end result of the churn in international affairs would be a high degree of instability, both economic and political.

India has positioned itself adroitly as a swing state in the ongoing confrontations. Its position is due to some compulsions regarding dependence on Russia for its military requirements and China’s uncalled for aggressive action in Ladakh.  India needs to be careful about its relationship with the USA, considering that getting too close may lead it into trouble. Similarly, China being constrained in its confrontation with Taiwan may seek other opportunities to display its dominance and power, such as ramping up its confrontation with India. Uncertainty will be the norm on the economic front with oil and commodity prices coming under pressure. Similarly, with the ongoing China-Taiwan confrontation, supply chain disruptions can be expected particularly in terms of chips, which remains India’s vulnerability. This dependence and vulnerability will remain till India’s efforts at “Atmanirbhar Bharat” start bearing fruit.

All in all, we are in for interesting times with the USA setting the cat among the pigeons, so to say. Fortunately, India is keeping its options open and had secured its interests fairly well.

As compared to China, a near peer competitor and Russia an earlier rival, USA had advantages in terms of economically powerful allies and alliances it had stitched together in earlier times, such as with EU, Japan and South Korea. A nation needs allies, supporters and some control over international institutions to be able to wield power and influence on the world stage. First and fore most the growing intimacy between China and Russia, the most unlikely allies, had to be disrupted.

This comedy of sorts has come to life as the fog of war lifts and the vice like grip of the West on news coming out of Ukraine weakens. Not that anyone really believed the story of the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ or for that matter about Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island living up to the creed of ‘last man last round’. That happened at Rezang La. As one contemplates how and why Ukraine blundered into this unequal war, the ‘Melian Dialogues’ of Thucydides comes to mind.  Dialogues is about the confrontation between Athens and Melos. Athens was a powerful state, while Melos was a small and supposedly neutral island. Athens threatens a military invasion unless its demands are met. The leadership of Melos argues about freedom, equity and justice. In their dialogues, the bottom-line boils down to the simple fact that; “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compete and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. Failing to dissuade the Athenians, the Melian leadership decides to fight and lose everything, including their freedom. This inequality between the weak and the strong has remained the classic axiom of war and politics.1 History has repeatedly confirmed the validity of this observation. When the Ukraine-Russia war ends, the most likely result would be Ukraine's bifurcation, total devastation of its cities and infrastructure, millions of its citizens as refugees in neighbouring countries and tens of thousands of its citizens killed, including many children.

What was the Ukrainian leadership aiming to achieve by avoiding negotiations with Russia? What was more important for the leaders than preserving the nation's integrity and wellbeing of its citizens? Russia was primarily seeking Ukraine's neutrality and abandoning the quest for NATO membership. Ukraine's NATO membership was an existential threat and Russia had warned that this may lead to retaliation. The Ukrainian leadership carried away by sweet talk and backing of the USA and NATO floundered into an unwinnable war. Maybe the leadership had also not heard of Henry Kissinger's famous quip, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."   (The Wall Street Journal: A Fatal Friendship? - WSJ). Was NATO membership more important than preserving Ukraine's integrity and the wellbeing of its citizens?  It is best left to the beleaguered citizens of Ukraine to seek answers to this question from the current leadership. 

Let’s look at the consequences of the war and the attendant sanctions regime unleashed by the USA and EU. On the warfront, Russia’s precise objectives for launching the invasions are not known, making it difficult to assess success or failure.  Western sources claim that the initial objective of controlling Kyiv failed and Russia then veered towards capturing the Eastern region adjoining the mainland. The invasion, termed as special operations by Russia was aimed at de-nazifying the Donbas region. Russian Army has captured over 20% of Ukraine’s territory  comprising the Russian speaking Luhansk and Donetsk. Recently the Russian foreign minister had stated that operations would continue beyond the Donbas region.

As of now, Russia appears close to achieving its military objectives of freeing the Donbas region from Ukrainian control and establishing a land corridor connecting Russia to Crimea. The Russian military campaign is progressing at a very slow pace and the war is expected to drag on with the focus shifting to capture or defence of cities. Ukraine’s strategy of forcing Russia into urban warfare in towns with civilians, hampering full scale use of firepower, is slowing down Russian advance. The land operations have exhausted and sapped the Russian forces. The Ukrainians have also suffered heavy casualties. Operations have degenerated into attrition-based engagements with Russians holding the upper hand.

For peace talks to be successful both sides need an honourable exit. This appears unlikely in the immediate future. Russia being on the winning side would insist on retaining control of the captured territories, nominally giving Luhansk and Donetsk autonomy, post a referendum. Russia would also insist on retaining the land corridor connecting Russia and to Crimea. Ukraine on the other hand wants Russia to vacate the occupied territories. Zelensky is talking about raising a million strong army to retake lost territories. USA and NATO would back Ukraine’s demand. With such divergent positions, peace seems unlikely in the near future and the confrontation may degenerate into insurgency or unconventional warfare bogging down both Russia, Ukraine and NATO. This may meet USA’s objective to weaken Russia and keep her embroiled in the West.

The flurry of sanctions both economic and diplomatic were the hallmark of the West’s approach to weaken Russia and force it to abandon the war. The second order consequences of the sanctions do not seem to have been thought through in adequate detail. European dependence on Russian oil and gas diluted the impact of the sanctions and provided Russia with a handle to bypass the severe impact of many of the Western sanctions. Imposing such an inflationary burden on all countries, may not be the best way to solicit their backing for the sanctions against Russia.

The Ukrainian army may delay the inevitable but cannot expect any help beyond weapons and ammunition resupply: no boots on the ground or weapons which can lead to any escalation. Russia while having suffered economically, managed to recoup thanks to

The Ukraine-Russia war gets curiouser and curiouser as it enters the sixth month. The happenings could well have qualified as a comedy, but for the tragic consequences suffered by Ukrainians in particular and the entire world in general. This comedy of errors is emerging as the fog of war lifts and the manipulations by different actors comes to the fore as the vice like grip of the West on news coming out of Ukraine and the West loosens. Not that anyone really one really believed the story of the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ or for that matter about Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island living up to the creed of ‘last man last round’. That happened at Rezang La. As one contemplates the Ukraine-Russia war of unequals, the ‘Melian Dialogues’ of Thucydides comes to mind.  Dialogues is about the confrontation between Athens and Melos. Athens was a powerful state, while Melos was a small and supposedly neutral island. Athens threatens a military invasion unless its demands are met. The leadership of Melos argues about freedom, equity and justice. In their dialogues, the bottom-line boils down to the simple fact that; “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compete and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. Failing to dissuade the Athenians, the Melian leadership decides to fight and lose everything, including their freedom. This inequality between the weak and the strong has remained the classic axiom of war and politics.1 History has repeatedly confirmed the validity of this observation. When the Ukraine-Russia war ends, the most likely result would be Ukraine's bifurcation, total devastation of its cities and infrastructure, millions of its citizens as refugees in neighbouring countries and tens of thousands of its citizens killed including many children.

What was the Ukrainian leadership aiming to achieve by avoiding negotiations with Russia? What was more important for the leaders than preserving the nation's integrity and wellbeing of its citizens? Russia was primarily seeking Ukraine's neutrality and abandoning the quest for NATO membership. Ukraine's NATO membership was an existential threat and Russia had warned that this may lead to retaliation. The Ukrainian leadership carried away by sweet talk and backing of the USA and NATO blundered into an unwinnable war. Maybe the leadership had also not heard of Henry Kissinger's famous quip, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." The state of Ukraine confirmed the truism..  (The Wall Street Journal: A Fatal Friendship? - WSJ). Was NATO membership more important than preserving Ukraine's integrity and the wellbeing of its citizens?  It is best left to the beleaguered citizens of Ukraine to seek answers to this question from the current leadership. 

A historical perspective would help better understand events and hindsight in tying together different strands to create the narrative. Ukraine was a low hanging fruit for the West to prise out of Russian grip. Erstwhile USSR in its wisdom, included certain Russian speaking areas such as Donbas and Crimea as part of Ukraine, possibly on account of contiguity. However, post Ukraine’s breakaway and independence after dissolution of USSR, tension emerged between the Eastern Russian speaking and pro-Moscow regions and West Ukraine which desired alignment with the EU. The current crisis harks back to 2014, when the US and West created the conditions and supported Ukraine’s ‘Euro-maidan revolution’. This so called ‘revolution of dignity’ ousted the pro-Russian President making way for the new pro-US and West dispensation. The Ukrainian elite was thus beholden to the USA and EU for their support. The Ukrainian leadership has since then been accused of harassment and use of heavy-handed measures against the Russian speaking citizens leading to strife and tensions with Russia.

On the larger canvas, it appears that the USA was attempting to redeem itself after the inglorious exit from Afghanistan and similar reversals and face-saving exits from Iraq, the fight against ISIS and the world observing Iran continuing to defy US sanctions. The world in general was considering USA to be a fading power, slowly losing its clout in international power play. The developing situation in Ukraine provided USA an opportunity to display the extent of its power and clout to reassert its numero uno position.  This intervention had minimal risks since direct armed involvement could be avoided with a beholden Ukraine serving as an ideal proxy. Instigating an armed intervention by Russia in Ukraine would lead to many favourable outcomes: strengthening NATO, realigning European allies slowly drifting apart from the US, creating a schism between EU and Russia, rearming of NATO, stopping the slow but close relationship developing between Germany and Russia and killing the Nord Stream 2 project.  Additionally, the war would rein in a resurgent Russia by getting it involved in a long drawn out war and display USA’s clout and influence in the use of non-military instruments of power. It appeared to be a win-win situation for the USA. There were many ifs and buts and required numerous stars to be alignment correctly.  But the risks appeared acceptable and the dice rolled.

Ukraine made loud claims of sovereignty and insisted on exercising its choice to join NATO. For Russia it was unthinkable that NATO missiles and weapons could be deployed on its Western border, close to its heartland. This Russian insecurity was a legacy born out of historical experience leading to the inevitable military response of the strong against the weak. The invasion of Ukraine was launched in February 2022. Ukraine and its supporters; the USA and NATO retaliated using a variety of means. First and foremost, the Ukrainian forces put up a much fiercer defence that expected by Russia. Supported by volunteers from other countries, they received a continuous supply of weapons and logistics from US and NATO. Alongside armed resistance, the West imposed a series of sanctions boycotting Russian oil and gas and goods, freezing Russian assets and currency reserves held by the Western financial institutions and delinking Russian entities from the SWIFT platform. The West, which controlled the major news providers, imposed restrictions and unleashed an information war against Russia with only the Western narrative dominating news worldwide. Despite Russia’s right to veto Security Council resolutions, the United Nations platforms such as the General Assembly and Human Rights Commission were activated to pass resolutions censuring Russian invasion.  Many countries were persuaded and at times coerced to issue anti-Russian statements. In short, the USA with the support of its allies displayed their power and influence to impose severe economic hardships and diplomatic isolation on targeted countries.

Imposing sanctions was easier than ensuring that these would weaken Russia to an extent of destroying it internally or lead to regime change. The second order consequences of the sanctions do not seem to have been thought through in adequate detail. European dependence on Russian oil, gas and coal diluted the impact of the sanctions and provided Russia with a handle to bypass the severe impact of many of the Western sanctions. As a matter of fact, it seems that Europe is financing the Russian invasion. Surprise of surprise is that Ukraine is still receiving gas/oil transit charges from Russia in hard currency even as the war goes on between the two. The situation is as complex as the maize of twisted buy and sale agreements set up by Milo Minderbinder in the satiric Joseph Heller novel, Catch 22. The unintended consequences were the high inflation afflicting the entire world due to fuel price increase. Added woe was food shortage due to disruption of wheat supply from Ukraine and Russia leading to worldwide food related price rise.  Imposing such an inflationary burden on all countries, may not be the best way to solicit their backing for the sanctions against Russia.

As of now, Russia appears close to achieving its military objectives of freeing the Donbas region from Ukrainian control and establishing a land corridor connecting Russia to Crimea. The Russian military campaign appears to be progressing at a very slow pace and the war is expected to drag on with the focus shifting to capture or defence of cities. Ukraine’s strategy is to force Russia into urban warfare in towns with civilians, hampering full scale use of firepower. Long engagements of this nature would sap the Russian forces.

What then can be expected in the near future? For peace talks to be successful both sides need an honourable exit. This appears unlikely in the immediate future. Russia being on the winning side would insist on retaining control of the captured territories, nominally giving Luhansk and Donetsk autonomy post a referendum. Russia would also insist on retaining the land corridor connecting Russia and to Crimea. Ukraine on the other hand wants Russia to vacate the occupied territories. Zelensky is talking about raising a million strong army to retake lost territories. USA and NATO would back Ukraine’s demand. With such divergent positions, peace seems unlikely in the near future and the confrontation may degenerate into insurgency or unconventional warfare bogging down both Russia, Ukraine and NATO. This may well be USA’s objective to weaken Russia and keep her embroiled in the West.

This is borne out by the recent admission of the USA's Secretary of Defense, Llyod Austin that, "USA wanted to militarily weaken Russia".  This reveals that the US/NATO objective is not necessarily to defend Ukraine, but to degrade and weaken Russian military capability. Therein lies the rub.  Ukraine has received all possible support from USA and NATO, short of boots on the ground. NATO or US forces will never be permitted to engage the Russian military. A WhatsApp meme doing the rounds which reads sums up the situation very succinctly: "The United States will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian". Ukraine is thus a proxy or a pawn in this great game and the Ukrainian leadership headed by President Zelensky appear quite satisfied in playing out that role.  The confrontation is thus more between the USA/NATO and Russia with Ukraine being the battlefield.

The sanctions have to a large extent boomeranged. The price rise of oil, gas and food have impacted all countries and may result in bankruptcy such as that of Sri Lanka and food shortages. The inflationary impact has affected the USA and Europe, with the threat of recession on the horizon. Russia has been affected adversely, but not to the extent anticipated. With Europe still dependent on Russian oil and gas, the price rise has set the cash registers ringing. The price rise and the possibility of Russia weaponizing oil and gas, portends a harsh winter in countries like Germany. This may lead to cracks developing among EU members. On the other side the war has reinvigorated NATO and brought the US and European allies much closer. This closeness and alignment may well change EU relations with China for the worse. The European nations have also started focusing in Defence by raising allocations.

In Ukraine US attempted to bring to heel its earlier rival and a resurgent Russia, without using military force but employing other instruments of power. Engaging Russia in the West would weaken the extent of its support to China and reinforce the point that it continued to control most instruments of power besides being militarily the most powerful nation.

The current crisis harks back to 2014, when the US and West created the conditions and supported Ukraine’s ‘Euro-maidan revolution’. This so called ‘revolution of dignity’ ousted the pro-Russian President making way for the new pro-US and West dispensation. In view of the support of the EU/USA, the Ukrainian elite was persuaded to draw Russia into an unwinnable war and thus impoverish and weaken it to an extent that it would no longer be a threat. Ukraine’s joining NATO was expected to provoke Russia. That Russia would retaliate was predicted by many eminent international affairs scholars such as Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and others. They suggested that Ukraine joining NATO would pose an existential threat to Russia and lead to a military confrontation. USA found an ideal ally in President Zelensky to further its designs. Ukraine’s claim of sovereignty and its insistence on exercising its choice to join NATO, finally pushed Russia into using military force. For Russia it was unthinkable that NATO missiles and weapons could be deployed on its Western border, close to its heartland. This Russian insecurity was a legacy born out of historical experience.

The invasion of Ukraine launched in February 2022 was Russia’s military response to what it felt was an existential threat. Ukraine and its supporters; the USA and NATO retaliated using a variety of means. First and foremost, the Ukrainian forces put up a much fiercer defence that expected by Russia. Supported by volunteers from other countries, they received a continuous supply of weapons and logistics from NATO. Alongside armed resistance, the West imposed a series of sanctions boycotting Russian goods, freezing Russian assets and currency reserves held by the Western financial institutions and delinking Russian entities from the SWIFT platform. The West, which controlled the major news providers, imposed restrictions and unleashed an information war against Russia with only the Western narrative dominating news worldwide. Despite Russia’s right to veto Security Council resolutions, the United Nations platforms such as the General Assembly and Human Rights Commission were activated to pass resolutions censuring Russian invasion.  Many countries were persuaded and at times coerced to issue anti-Russian statements. In short, the USA with the support of its allies displayed their power and influence to impose severe economic hardships and diplomatic isolation on targeted countries.

However, the European dependence on Russian oil, gas and coal diluted the impact of the sanctions and provided Russia with a handle to bypass the severe impact of many of the Western sanctions. The sanctions resulted in oil and commodity prices rising worldwide leading to high inflation and disruption of supply chains and impacted US and its allies as well.

The Russian military campaign appears to be progressing at a very slow pace and the war is expected to drag on. Russia appears close to achieving its military objectives of freeing the Donbas region from Ukrainian control and establishing a land corridor connecting Russia to Crimea. However, Ukraine would be unwilling to cede these areas to Russia and can be expected to continue operations to regain control, using conventional means or through sponsored insurgencies. One can thus expect Russia to get bogged down militarily in the longer term. This may well be the US’s objective to weaken and keep Russia embroiled in the West.

This is borne out by the recent admission of the USA's Secretary of Defense, Llyod Austin that, "USA wanted to militarily weaken Russia".  This reveals that the US/NATO objective is not necessarily to defend Ukraine, but to degrade and weaken Russian military capability. Therein lies the rub.  Ukraine has received all possible support from USA and NATO, short of boots on the ground. NATO or US forces will never be permitted to engage the Russian military. A WhatsApp meme doing the rounds which reads sums up the situation very succinctly: "The United States will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian". Ukraine is thus a proxy or a pawn in this great game and the Ukrainian leadership headed by President Zelensky appear quite satisfied in playing out that role.  The confrontation is thus more between the USA/NATO and Russia with Ukraine being used as the battlefield. Maybe the Ukrainians were not familiar with the famous quip of Henry Kissinger's, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." The state of Ukraine in this war more than bears out the veracity of the quip.  (The Wall Street Journal: A Fatal Friendship? - WSJ)

When the Ukraine-Russia war ends, the most likely result would be Ukraine's breakup, total devastation of its cities and infrastructure, millions of its citizens as refugees in neighbouring countries and tens and thousands of its citizens killed including many children. Considering the destructive consequences of the war, a question that comes to mind is, “What was the Ukrainian leadership aiming to achieve by avoiding negotiations with Russia? What was more important for the leaders than preserving the nation's integrity and wellbeing of its citizens? Was NATO membership more important? It is best left to the beleaguered citizens of Ukraine to seek answers to these questions from the current leadership. 

More than two months after the commencement of the war, it is not clear as to Who's fighting whom and for what? Who started or instigated the war? Where is the war headed? And who would decide when to end the war?  These questions are getting more are more vexing. The news emerging from the warzone is as confusing as the analysis by news channels. These narratives hide more than what they reveal. But the most confounding aspect  is why did Ukraine permit the situation to culminate in an unequal war and then asking others to help?  Ukraine was fully aware that the Russian military was overwhelmingly more powerful. The Russian-Ukraine equation brings to mind the famous 'Melian Dialogues' by the Greek historian Thucydides. Dialogues is about the confrontation between Athens and Melos. Athens was a powerful state, while Melos was a small and supposedly neutral island. Athens threatens a military invasion unless its demands are met. The leadership of Melos argues about freedom, equity and justice. In their dialogues, the bottom-line boils down to the simple fact that; “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compete and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. Failing to dissuade the Athenians, the Melian leadership decides to fight and lose everything, including their freedom. This inequality between the weak and the strong has remained the classic axiom of war and politics.1 History has repeatedly confirmed the validity of this observation. When the Ukraine-Russia war ends, the most likely result would be Ukraine's breakup, total devastation of its cities and infrastructure, millions of its citizens as refugees in neighbouring countries and tens and thousands of its citizens killed including many children.

What was the Ukrainian leadership aiming to achieve by avoiding negotiations with Russia? What was more important for the leaders than preserving the nation's integrity and the well being of its citizens? Russia was primarily seeking Ukraine's neutrality and abandoning the quest for NATO membership. Ukraine's NATO membership was an existential threat and Russia had warned that this may lead to retaliation. There were some other demands relating to Donbas autonomy and Crimea. Was NATO membership more important than preserving Ukraine's integrity and the wellbeing of its citizens?  It is best left to the beleaguered citizens of Ukraine to seek answers to this question from the current leadership.  But a clue to the reasons behind the behavior of the Ukrainian leadership may lie in the past. The war between Russia and Ukraine (as proxy of USA) started in 2014 when the pro-Russian President was removed in the so called Maidan Revolution instigated and supported by USA and the West. The West leaning leadership which replaced the pre-Russian government was obliged to the West and functioned as per their bidding. The leadership, many with dual citizenship have followed the dictates of the West. The invasion of 24 March 2022 was the open declaration of war and the Russian Army's entry into Ukraine. S

Moving beyond this question what needs a deeper look is who is fighting whom? Maybe a clue to this could lie in a WhatsApp meme doing the rounds which reads: "The United States will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian". This lends credence to the recent admission of the USA's Secretary of Defense, Llyod Austin that, "USA wanted to militarily weaken Russia".  If the statement is analysed, it reveals that US/NATO objective is not to defend Ukraine, but to degrade and weaken Russian military capability. Therein lies the rub. Ukraine has received all possible support from USA and NATO, short of boots on the ground. Mercenaries and possibly even special forces personnel, extensive supply of arms/ammunition and defensive weapons provided by USA & NATO members. Other measures such as stringent economic sanctions, restrictions on movement, flights etc were aimed at debilitating the Russian state. Ukraine is thus a proxy or a pawn in this great game and the Ukrainian leadership appears quite satisfied in playing out that role. The US/NATO support has emboldened the Ukrainian leadership with President Zelensky, holding press conferences and sending video messages motivating Ukrainians to stand up to the Russians.  The confrontation is thus more between the USA/NATO and Russia with Ukraine being used as the battlefield. This reminds one of Henry Kissinger's famous quip, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." The state of Ukraine in this war more than bears out the veracity of the quip.  (The Wall Street Journal: A Fatal Friendship? - WSJ)

The war is unique in the manner in which information has been manipulated. some aspects. The West has used its media   The Western media and the narratives being churned out have obfuscated the issue focusing solely on Russia villainy and diverting attention from the other party in the fray; the Ukrainian leadership.

We therefore observe the Biden-Zelensky double engine single-mindedly hurtling towards disaster unconcerned about the impact of ordinary Ukrainians.  Ukrainian President Zelensky heroic bit about standing up to Russia and even claiming that Russian troops are being pushed back appears ironical. Zelensky projects himself as a patriot and nationalist. One would think that a nationalist would do everything in his power to protect the integrity of the country and ensure wellbeing of the citizens. What do we see in Ukraine today?

  of its cities and infrastructure,  will  and we see its relevance in the case of Ukraine and Russia.

 The Ukraine -Russian war has entered the third month and there are no signs as yet of an end to the hostilities. USA just announced a massive package of $33 billion to support Ukraine indicating that Ukraine is not looking at an early settlement.  Even as the war goes on, doubt persists as to who is the villain of the piece. Is it Russia, which if the Western media is to believed, instigated the war and has committed genocide besides innumerable human right violations? Or is it the USA, ably assisted by NATO which instigated the war by crossing the Russian red line of encouraging Ukraine to join NATO and thereby posing an existential threat to Russia? This view gains credence based on the recent admission of the USA's Secretary of Defense, Llyod Austin that USA wanted to militarily weaken Russia. The Western media and the narratives being churned out have obfuscated the issue focusing solely on Russia villainy and diverting attention from the other party in the fray; the Ukrainian leadership.

One would consider that the primary duty of the leadership must be the protection the integrity of the nation and ensure the wellbeing of its citizens. In relation to these what has the Ukrainian leadership led by Zelensky done?  It was well known that the Russian military was overwhelmingly more powerful than that of Ukraine. The Russian-Ukraine equation brings to mind the famous 'Melian Dialogues' by Greek historian Thucydides. The Dialogues is about the confrontation between Athens and Melos. Athens is a powerful state, while Melos is a small and supposedly neutral island. Athens threatens a military invasion unless its demands are met. The leadership of Melos argues about freedom, equity and justice. In their dialogues, the bottom-line boils down to the simple fact that; “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compete and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. Failing to dissuade the Athenians, the Melian leadership decides to fight and lose everything, including their freedom. This inequality between the weak and the strong has remained the classic axiom of war and politics.1 History has repeatedly confirmed the validity of this observation and we see its relevance in the case of Ukraine and Russia.  The obvious course should have been to negotiate or even announce postponement of its intention to join NATO.

Or do we need to take a deeper look at the Ukrainian leadership? With the Western media and narrative

The Ukraine-Russian war is quite unique and encompasses many of the new features of warfare discussed earlier and therefore requires a deeper study. To appreciate the ongoing war, it is necessary to be familiar with the events leading to it. Russia and Ukraine had strained relations after the maidan revolution of 2014 and after the Ukrainian government's shift from being pro-Russian to pro-West. Ukraine's leadership was looking at joining EU and possibly NATO and as per Russia had not honoured the 2015 Minsk Treaty to give autonomy to the East Ukrainian provinces. Ukraine joining NATO was an unacceptable security threat to Russia. Russia had three main demands: Ukraine not joining NATO thereby assuring its neutrality, limited autonomy to the two Eastern provinces (as per Russian interpretation of the Minsk Treat of 2015) and Russian retention of control of the Crimea peninsula. Talks and negotiations proved infructuous.

The initial operations appear to have aimed at coercing or compelling Ukraine to negotiate and agree to the Russian demands. Russia expected this to be a walkover considering Ukraine's limited military capabilities. But Ukraine received overwhelming support from NATO and US in terms of weapons and volunteers/ mercenaries. NATO however, was unwilling to put boots on the ground for obvious reasons. The support came as a surprise to Russia and its campaign was somewhat stymied. Russia was also circumspect in using firepower to bomb urban centres and then capture them as it had done earlier in Chechnya. The world attention and clamour of human rights resulted in its attempts to capture Kyiv being somewhat tentative. The information war and very stringent economic sanctions unleashed by the West added to Russian woes. Ukrainian leadership encouraged by US/NATO support was not very forthcoming in acceding to Russian demands and as a first step wanted cessation of hostilities. The overwhelming isolation of Russia in the UN and information blackout conveyed the impression that Russia was losing the war. Realising the futility of attempting to coerce Ukraine, Russia moved to secure the Eastern region which has Russian speaking population. It also attempted to create a land-link to Crimea. That’s where the matter rests.

The war is unlikely to end unless both sides achieve honourable outcomes. The writing on the wall does indicate that bifurcation of Ukraine. Russia is unlikely to unilaterally end operations. It has suffered immensely and is unlikely to accept NATO at its doorstep. War is thus likely to continue till Ukrainians decide that they have suffered adequately or schisms emerge among NATO members as also USA.

A WhatsApp meme doing the rounds aptly sums up the situation in Ukraine and reads: "The United States will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian". We therefore observe the Biden-Zelensky double engine single-mindedly hurtling towards disaster unconcerned about the impact of ordinary Ukrainians.  Ukrainian President Zelensky heroic bit about standing up to Russia and even claiming that Russian troops are being pushed back appears ironical. Zelensky projects himself as a patriot and nationalist. One would think that a nationalist would do everything in his power to protect the integrity of the country and ensure wellbeing of the citizens. What do we see in Ukraine today?

The country is being devastated and it would be decades before a semblance of On both these counts, the Ukrainian leadership's performance has been pathetic. It has been unable to protect the country's integrity and with Russia

Many European politicians as per the latest news, are asking the Swedish Academy to consider Zelensky for the Nobel Peace prize for 2022. Amusing to say the least. It was the absence of negotiations and unwillingness of Ukraine under US and NATO influence, to give up on its demand to join NATO that precipitated the war. With the support of the one-sided reportage and US/ EU backing, Zelensky may well be nominated for the peace prize. That will be most inappropriate and a travesty of justice. It will also be unfair to the poor Ukrainians who have suffered large scale death, destruction and forced immigration due to the Russian invasion which could have been avoided through diplomatic means.

Zelensky's bravado and standing up to the Russian assault seems more like a fallback option after the brinkmanship fomented by the West collapsed. The Russian invasion put paid to all the sweet talk of support by US and NATO when there was a lot of talk, sanctions on Russia and nothing beyond supply of some arms and other resources. No boots on the ground or creation of a 'no flying zone'. When it came to putting money where your mouth is,

 support beyond supply of arms/ resources was forthcoming

The time for talks and negotiations was before the Russian invasion, which were stalled by US interference. Surprisingly, Considering the manner in which the European countries, UK and USA have come together and their media has drowned out any other narrative but their own, Zelensky may well be honoured with the Peace prize. But that would be a travesty of justice. Zelensky could well be charged with encouraging the war and shunning negotiations with Russia under the influence of NATO egged on by the USA. The primary Russian demand of Ukraine's neutrality and non-membership of NATO is now being agreed to by Zelensky after nearly 20 days of war and largescale devastation with millions of Ukrainians seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. Ukraine will take a decade or more to return to normalcy and restoration of its infrastructure. The Ukrainian leadership

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is getting curiouser and curiouser.   The USA, NATO and neighbouring countries have a stake in the ongoing conflict and are doing their utmost to protect their interests, even as they provide help to Ukraine. Other countries are scrambling to avoid adverse impact of the war due to supply disruptions and rising prices. The only country which appears to have abandoned the pursuit of its interests is Ukraine itself, with the leadership attempting to prolong the conflict disregarding the likelihood of the country's breakup, death, destruction and citizens in hordes seeking refuge in neighbouring countries.  Though geographically distant, the developments concern India because it had to evacuate large number of its citizens from the war zones. India is also being pressurised by the West and the western media to abandon its neutral stance and label Russia as an aggressor and join the West's sanction bandwagon.

Before we identify some important aspects relevant in our context, it may be worthwhile to briefly prognosticate the outcome of the ongoing conflict. There is little clarity at present about the course of the war, with the West reporting a slowdown in the Russian advance and considerable armed opposition from the Ukrainians. Russia has borne the brunt of West's calumny and the economic impact of sanctions. It is thus unlikely to stop unless it achieves its primary objective for launching the invasion. Negotiations have commenced and some concessions have been announced by both sides. Both sides appear to be moving away from their maximalist positions. The Russian President has indicated giving up on regime change in Kiev and looks towards a demilitarised and non-NATO Ukraine, a formal agreement on Russian control of Crimea and autonomy for Donbas region. Ukraine has indicated its intention to abandon NATO membership. But the road ahead appears to be torturous, requiring a ceasefire to start with, withdrawal of Russian troops, grant of a degree of autonomy to Donbas region and formal agreements on other issues. It will be sometime before peace returns.

The war though geographically distant from India, has impacted it adversely and revealed certain aspects that merit consideration. First and foremost, Ukraine is somewhat of a proxy, a pawn in the great game being between powerful nations: Russia and USA. This became obvious when even the German Naval Chief during his recent visit to India had suggested that Russian President Putin's demands need to be taken seriously. This comment resulted in his resignation. Even later is became obvious that Germany, France and some others were keen on talks and negotiations with Russia to prevent a war. The USA was however, quite demanding and used its influential position in NATO to rally members to oppose Russia. The US cancelled the talks between the heads of the two countries and their foreign ministers.  USA has emerged as the master puppeteer, with the Ukrainian leadership very surprisingly disregarding its own core interests and toeing the US line. But the US and NATO members are unwilling to help Ukraine

age old  but has The first is related to the information war or in this case it is more akin to an assault. It is a war of narratives and the western narrative is winning hands down. A strong narrative is being built up to portray Putin and Russia as blood thirsty devils incarnate. The underlying Russian insecurities which went unaddressed and were ignored are lost in the frenzy of reporting the death and devastation. Ukraine and its leadership are being portrayed as courageous but helpless targets of Russian brutality and high handedness. This one-sided narrative was to be expected considering that the biggest news agencies such a Reuters, AFP and AP are all of Western origin. The West does exercise a high degree of control of the ongoing narrative. India has been at the receiving end of China's information blitz and the requirement to put in place our own information resources and dissemination agencies has never been more urgent than it is today.

The second aspect that emerged by chance was the fact that despite all the talk of democracy and egalitarianism, racial discrimination persists. Statements and posts by many journalists and their ilk, as well passengers other than whites not being permitted on trains leaving war zones brought the bias, which was larking below the surface, out in the open. The inherent racial bias is too obvious to be ignored. The Western approach of 'we' and 'them' will remain and Indians are unlikely to be accepted as one of them for some time to come.

The war was the result of grievances and insecurities which had historical roots stretching beyond World War 2.  Russia has historically assured its security by ensuring that invading armies would need to cross vast territories before reaching its heartland. The harsh winter and barren land together sapped the energies of any invader, whether it was a Napoleon or the Wehrmacht. With Ukraine planning to join NATO, the prospect of American missiles and weapons at its borders and within striking distance of its heartland appeared intimidating. Russian insecurity was thus the core issue.  

The relations between Russia and its breakaway province, Ukraine were quite normal till they boiled over as in 2014 in the wake of the 'Kiev Maidan' or the Maidan revolution following protests after the government refused to sign the EU-Ukraine association agreement. With the fall of the pro-Russian President, Russia invaded and occupied the Crimean peninsula, taking control of the port of its Black Sea fleet. Eastern Ukraine with substantial population of Russian origin also rebelled against the new government leading to unrest and suppression. The relations with Ukraine have been tense since then. Attempts to seek a solution have not proved successful with tensions mounting. The Ukrainian government seeking to counter the Russian threats sought EU and NATO membership, triggering Russian insecurity at US or Western weapons deployed at its doorstep. In this attempt, outside powers sought to manipulate the situation to further their interests.

Threats and coercion by Russia to stop Ukraine's attempts to join NATO and retain neutrality proved unsuccessful and Russia invaded Ukraine.

broke out Ukraine crisis has been simmering and occasionally boiling over since several years and President Putin has attempted many times negotiating a modus vivendi with the NATO bloc in Eastern Europe, but western leaders, smugly confident of their innate moral superiority and economic advantage made such endeavours fail.
The US under Biden and his woke liberal team, bent on leading a “league of democracies” against “authoritarian and rogue regimes” did not countenance any agreement with a Russian government they despise and they draw legitimacy at home from their purported crusade against the old Soviet “Evil Empire”, reincarnated as Putin’s dispensation.

Another aspect that was starkly evident was the lack of perspicacity of the Ukrainian leadership. While USA, NATO and others were playing the game of brinkmanship, Ukraine was the sacrificial lamb. The Ukrainian leadership should have realised that when push comes to shove, USA or NATO would not in any way join the fight against the Russians. Sagacity lay in avoiding a war which would very badly hurt Ukraine and its citizens. But the lack of experience and humility of the President, an erstwhile owner of a comedy club and his associates who were the main advisers took a non-negotiable firm stand leading to war.

The Ukraine crisis has been simmering and occasionally boiling over since several years and President Putin has attempted many times negotiating a modus vivendi with the NATO bloc in Eastern Europe, but western leaders, smugly confident of their innate moral superiority and economic advantage made such endeavours fail.
The US under Biden and his woke liberal team, bent on leading a “league of democracies” against “authoritarian and rogue regimes” did not countenance any agreement with a Russian government they despise and they draw legitimacy at home from their purported crusade against the old Soviet “Evil Empire”, reincarnated as Putin’s dispensation.

Ukrainians we can still point out the geopolitical manipulation of which they are the victims.

The next days and months will tell if the decision to invade Ukraine was strategically wrong, apart from being legally objectionable, but it is a fallacy to think that the problem lies only in Putin’s mind. The Russian ruling circles share his acute concern on this issue even when they may differ about the method to address it. That will not change anytime soon.

The US and British Governments in particular have used and are using Ukraine as a casus belli with Moscow and its allies in the CSTO, refusing to embrace less conflictive alternatives. The intention in Washington and London is avowedly to besiege and bleed Russia and additionally weaken the EU, economically and socially by getting it fully enmeshed in a protracted confrontation in the East which will make member states increasingly dependent on the Anglo-Saxon alliance. A French politician recently confided he had observed the palpable British desire to bring the EU, and Germany in particular, down several pegs after Brexit, both to get even and to provide more room for the United Kingdom on the world scene.

In the backdrop of the Russia's special operations, a` la invasion, of Ukraine, there are many contradicting stories, numerous narratives floated by insiders or well-wishers leaving none any wiser. There are in addition to  some surprising  happenings, such as the intense pressure being mounted on India to label Russia an aggressor and vote alongside the West. Why this sudden love for India not only by Western diplomats but also by the foreign media.    

Why pressurise India: Using media to label Russia as criminal: Most news agencies controlled by West. Racial discrimination// recent media attacks on Indian democracy etc

Isolate Russia// Cut of weapon supply from Russia- Indian dependence on West for weapons// weaken China-Russia front grouping// Move Russia entangled in Europe-unable to assis t China Asia-Pacific.

Why India remain neutral: Retain influence with Russia// Evacuation of citizens priority, change may put hurdles//Unreliable US ally// Retain autonomy if blame Russia- totally dependent of West- not reliable.

a`

Ukraine: The Proverbial Sacrificial Lamb?

The news and analyses of the Russian invasion of Ukraine focuses mainly on the actions and motives of the main protagonists: Russia, USA and NATO. Somehow the role and actions of Ukraine, a country caught in the midst of it all, has not received the attention it deserves. The invasion is in reality the outcome of the political rivalry steeped in history between the USA and Russia, with NATO being a side player. Ukraine has unwittingly taken sides in this rivalry and is bearing the brunt of it all. Ukraine has no one to blame but itself for the ordeal. The Ukrainian leadership has been amazingly short sighted to have put at risk its very existence.  President Zelenskyy, would have been better advised to have stuck to his earlier profession of a comedian because what is happening to Ukraine is a tragi-comedy.

Russia has been very categorical about not permitting NATO's expansion into Ukraine, since foreign troops on its border would imperil its security. It has indicated that this is its vital interest and it is willing to use force to protect it.  Russia also harks back to the verbal assurance given by the USA after the dissolution of USSR that NATO would not expand Eastward. However, NATO expanded its membership to cover most Soviet bloc countries except Ukraine. Russia while protesting the expansion of NATO was not overtly too concerned since this did not impinge directly on its security. That is not the case with Ukraine and NATO or US troops being positioned in that country would threaten Russia. Not permitting Ukraine to join NATO is thus Russia's core interest. Ukraine has experienced Russian antagonism in the past, when it flirted with the West in 2014 and lost control of the Crimean peninsula. Even Georgia was at the receiving end of Russia's military action in a similar case in 2008. Russia under President Putin thus built up a reputation of using force to achieve Russia's core objectives. It is thus surprising that the Ukrainian leadership assumed it could get away with its intention of joining the EU and NATO even as Russia made it clear that it was willing to use force to stop this.

Even a cursory assessment of the military capabilities of the two countries reveals that Russia is far superior and Ukraine would not stand a chance if Russia decides to declare war. There was a yawning gap in the capabilities of the two countries. Added to this is the internal instability the Ukrainian government faces in the Donbas region due to rebellion by ethnic Russians.  It was also crystal clear that US and European countries were not going to send troops to defend Ukraine, a non-NATO country, in case Russia declares war. It defies logic and common sense on how and why the Ukrainian leadership still kept insisting on its sovereign right on joining NATO. In short Ukraine became the proverbial sacrificial lamb in this game of great power politics and conflict with the leadership being taken in by the big talk and brinkmanship of US and European nations. The leadership disregarded its primary duty of protecting the country's integrity and wellbeing of the citizens in pursuit of the chimera of NATO membership.

Ukraine thus has no one else to blame but its leadership for the tragic consequences it faces due to the Russian invasion.  There are lessons from Ukrainian naivety that stare us in the face. India cannot depend on any other country to come to its help in case of a security crisis. USA continues to play the game of brinkmanship and great power politics using other nations as pawns. India needs to tread very carefully in the great power games being played out on the international stage.