War is always unfortunate, and bears no justification. The war in Ukraine is not an exception either, as were the wars elsewhere in the near past since the 1990s. Who wages the war – a democracy like the United States or a regime like Russia – is immaterial, and deserves condemnation as it costs human life and inflicts untold miseries on the people. A full-scale war can even deprive a country of its new generation – the children and the youths – thus causing demographic imbalances. It could potentially deprive an economy’s ability to sustain its sovereignty. This is what would happen to Ukraine when the war ends – aid flows and loans will subdue its economic sovereignty and the external influences are likely to weaken the tenets of its political sovereignty. Unfortunately, whether a remodelled Marshall Plan comes up or a revised 2015 Minsk Agreement is drafted, Ukrainians are already paying the cost. It is imperative that we need to look at the strategic mistakes of Ukraine too and reflect on the role of great powers, while seeking a pragmatic approach to end the war.
At the behest of the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led his country to escalate the conflict with Russia. Zelenskyy’s jingoistic rhetoric against Russia since he assumed presidency cannot be seen as an attempt toward diplomacy, but as a non-serious propaganda that eventually attracted a war on his own people. Jingoistic appeals do raise emotions, but there has to be a limit. If a big power like Russia becomes jingoistic, it can still mould the situation in its favour. On the contrary, when a middle power like Ukraine does the same, it is most likely to push its citizens into miseries and compel them to become refugees in neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, the Ukrainians are paying the price of their leader’s farce jingoism that has placed them in a worst-case scenario. Most importantly, Zelenskyy was too slow in sensing an upcoming Russian invasion. He, in fact, downplayed the possibility of a war, and failed to enhance Ukrainian military and civil preparedness. Some see Zelenskyy as a hero and an example of resistance, but it remains without doubt that his prior preparedness could have saved Ukrainian lives too! Also, Zelenskyy’s domestic approval ratings were already on a gradual decline since he assumed the presidency in 2019 as the Ukrainians felt he was not keeping up with his poll promises.
On the other side, Russia believed that Ukraine is ruled by fascists since 2014, and that President Putin will get those Ukrainians punished who have committed crime against humanity in their own country. This has marked resemblance to the one that the United States propagated to seek global support for its war in Iraq in the 1990s and later too. But as in the case of the United States withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan despite prolonged occupation, Russia will also be compelled to follow the same course by the Ukrainian population. This is because the local Ukrainians are now already engaged in intense preparation as fighters to confront the Russian attacks in the future too. In February 2022, Russia officially recognised Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine as independent states. Moreover, Russia stated that it is only targeting military infrastructure in Ukraine, but the strikes caused civilian causalities too. Several NATO countries are now supplying arms to Ukraine as well to fight Russia. Russia has now seized the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, while Zelenskyy has accused it of nuclear terror. The nuclear war discourse has intermittently been part of this ongoing war – both in rhetoric as well as through popular media representations. There are reports that Putin is seeking a regime change in Kyiv and backing a former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who carries a pro-Moscow orientation. Yanukovych, who left office in 2014 amid protests, was not willing to support Ukraine’s closer ties with the European Union.
President Joe Biden too has a role! NATO forces are stationed in eastern European countries bordering Ukraine. Whereas Russia is being blamed for the invasion, the United States and NATO too must be held accountable for pushing Ukraine into a war without clarity in their own stance. The limited diplomatic response from the United States and NATO in resolving the crisis, in fact, led to the war. Of late, the status of the United States as a net security solution provider has remained questionable. It has been showing a withdrawal syndrome – in the middle east, in the Indo-Pacific, in North Korea, and now in Ukraine. For instance, it desires to work with its allies in the Indo-Pacific but lacks the position of strength to do so. Nor do the American non-NATO allies gather the confidence to see the United States as a reliable partner. From some countries in Southeast Asia including those in the South China Sea to the small islands in the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean – the significance of the United States as a security solution provider has drastically declined in the last five years.
In fact, there have been three sets of countries who have looked up to the United States and buy the narrative of ‘American exceptionalism’. First, they are those which are third world democracies, who buy an American narrative by comfortably undermining the fact that the United States will remain their ally only till the time these countries’ actions are subservient to American interests. Interestingly, in most cases, the American interests do not converge with theirs, but subdues them. Formation of a breakout security group like AUKUS (comprising of the United States, United Kingdom and Australia) by not choosing two democracies (India and Japan) from Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), but while adding its traditional ally (i.e. the United Kingdom) reflects why the United States remains an unreliable partner. Then there are countries which are aid-dependant on the United States, and for them the situation is still critical owing to the declining American interest in providing development aid. Withdrawal of Generalised System of Preferences, a trade preference program for developing countries, or reduction in America’s foreign aid is making the aid-dependant countries vulnerable. Some gaps are of course being filled by China through bilateral grants, loans, and even those through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Despite the American narrative of debt-trap against the BRI, many BRI beneficiary countries have relied on Chinese loans considering their economic interests as well as owing to lack of an alternative infrastructural financing framework. And finally, there are those like Taiwan or Ukraine who seek strategic strength from the United States, as well as Egypt or Afghanistan who have long seen the United States as their saviour. Amid all such permutation, there is no doubt that the United States lacks the commitment to support its allies. Nor does it enjoy a unipolar moment as a big power.
The global geopolitical architecture is fast evolving and is likely to do so in the near future as the United States is in a continuous struggle to find a role for itself in the regions that China and Russia dominate today. The Ukrainian crisis is one which has made the American role apparent. Finally, the war must end. But who takes the lead as a mediator is a question that bears utmost strategic significance. Perhaps, there is only one country i.e. China that can intervene and broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, albeit with the support of India. China’s engagements with Russia is robust and continuous. With Ukraine, it is intense too, as China is Ukraine’s largest trading partner. And with the European Union (that includes several NATO countries), China has maintained good economic and strategic ties, despite the EU seeing it as a systemic rival. India, too, has been Russia’s trade and strategic partner historically, and carries a sound engagement with the European Union. India, therefore, is also well-positioned to be a mediator along with China. India and China must hold a bilateral discussion to forge a pragmatic roadmap for mediation between Russia and Ukraine. Also, it is high time for India, China and Russia to strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), an economic and security alliance, sometimes also referred to as an Asian NATO. SCO must strive to become a net security solution provider in the region, and perhaps strive to include Ukraine as well.
