The drift towards 'war of resistance'

DC Pathak

(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)

The month-long Russian military operations in Ukraine – initially aimed at swiftly seizing Kyiv after degrading the defence capability of the East European country – have turned into a protracted armed conflict with the world opinion continuing to favour peace talks to avert a 'war' of global dimensions.

There was a touch of 'hot and cold' in the rhetoric exchanged between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukraine counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as the Russian offensive gradually led to a sustained armed resistance by Ukraine against the alien forces on its soil. There is still hope that sooner than later an agreeable solution will be reached through talks in a possible framework that could be regarded as legitimate.

The agenda will have to include an affirmation of the status of Ukraine as a sovereign democratic country outside NATO, a peace formula that addresses the security and economic concerns of President Putin and a clear declaration by the Ukraine President that the Russian speaking citizens of the country will face no discrimination at all. If some way could be found to make Crimea a symbol of political harmony between the two warring sides, this could further stabilize the situation for the long run.

The paradigms that govern Ukraine-Russia relations need to be acknowledged by all the stakeholders who stood for peace.

First, after the dismemberment of the USSR that ended its superpower status, the US-NATO combine should have scaled down its Cold War confrontation towards Russia – the much-depleted successor of the Soviet empire – and given a chance to Ukraine and other East European countries adjoining Russia to live in peaceful coexistence with the latter, while keeping fully prepared at the same time to deal with any Russian military misadventure. The West put these newly independent countries on a path of antagonism towards Russia.

Second, Russia's heavy-handed response to the rebellion of Islamic extremists in Chechnya set the course for the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 in retaliation against the EU-backed policy of confrontation towards Russia adopted by Ukraine.

Putin must have assessed that the US, preoccupied with the 'war on terror in Afghanistan, was reluctant to militarily intervene in Ukraine then and that NATO also was not in a position to send troops to a non-NATO country.

The simmering hostility between Ukraine and Russia meanwhile saw the rise of a separatist movement of the Russian-speaking population in the eastern provinces of Ukraine and its harsh suppression by the regime, strengthening Russian cross-border support for the anti-Ukraine protesters. The present military offensive of Russia in Ukraine is the result of a rapid deterioration of the relationship between the two countries because of the demonstrative zeal of President Zelensky to secure NATO membership for countering Russian action. This is what makes it important that any possible peace negotiations should rest on the preservation of the sovereignty of Ukraine even when it did not have membership of NATO.

And finally, the ongoing military offensive of Russia in Ukraine is proceeding on a three-fold strategy of attacking the military and strategic assets of Ukraine, extending the orbit of military action to several major cities of Ukraine in the eastern arc to stretch the Ukrainian army, and focusing on the take-over of Kyiv to install a favourable regime there.

Putin believes he has an upper hand primarily because of the reluctance of the US and its European allies to send their soldiers to Ukraine and wants to force Zelensky into submission.

Resorting to economic sanctions is the principal American response that was not so effective in the immediate run – it is the Western plan of rushing in arms and ammunition to Ukraine, however, that had enabled Ukraine to take on the Russians in a long-drawn confrontation.

With civilian fighters getting hold of stinger missiles and other equipment of soldiers, the conflict in Ukraine is rapidly turning into a national resistance movement joined in by 'patriots', many of whose families have been sent out as refugees to adjoining countries. Ukrainians have over the years been mentally attuned to facing the 'big brother' next door. Russia, meanwhile, is going ahead with its plans – adding to its strategy the objective of using missiles to destroy the lines of supply of the war material to Ukraine from outside.

The military confrontation between Ukraine and Russia is not likely to weaken the China-Russia bonds that are based on ideological similarities, the common perception of the US-led West as the prime adversary, and the geopolitical placing of the two powers. President Xi Jinping has made it clear that China is not deterred by the US threat of economic sanctions against it, which would be imposed in the event of China militarily backing Russia in this conflict.

In his talks with US President Joe Biden, Xi Jinping said "war was in no one's interest", bracketed China with the US by pointing out that they must shoulder "their international responsibilities" and emphasized the importance of "peace and security" for international relations.

China has called for negotiations and may have noted that a 'war of resistance' in Ukraine would merely somewhat stretch the mission of Putin to have his way in Kyiv. The US on its part is aware that Xi Jinping sought to follow the economic route to make China a superpower.

China, however, is adept at following the doctrine of 'two steps forward one step backwards' and has warned the US against any attempt to replicate NATO in the Indo-Pacific while advocating the need for talks to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

In case the US saw a parallel in the Ukrainian situation and the success of the anti-Soviet armed campaign in Afghanistan, this might turn out to be an untested logic because the strength of faith-based motivation with which the Islamic militants converted that campaign in Afghanistan into an 'asymmetric war' against the Soviet army, would be difficult to replicate in Ukraine. On the whole, the global effort has to be to bring about a peace agreement by addressing the concerns of both sides and also upholding on all counts the values on which a sovereign democratic nation must run its affairs in today's world.

The West should have gone all out to resolve the Crimean crisis along these lines when it was brewing in the run-up to the 2014 annexation of the territory by Russia, instead of aligning with one side. Also, international relations today must be based on negotiations for economic rights, and not on rushing into a military course for asserting them – as far as possible.

The situation precipitated by the Russian military operations in Ukraine saw the rise of India as a global power with Prime Minister Narendra Modi emerging as the only world leader whose peace intervention was desired by the two warring sides.

This was a triumph of his approach to international relations that rested on mutually beneficial bilateral relations that were conducive to world peace and progress as well. Amid demands of US on countries to condemn Russian attack on Ukraine, India abstained from a resolution to this effect moved in UNSC, to show its 'impartiality' – this happened after the Prime Minister had already spoken to Putin and called for immediate stoppage of military operations to enable the process of peace negotiations to start.

The stand of India facilitated the talk between Zelensky and Modi during which India's stand in favour of immediate cessation of hostilities was repeated and the willingness of India to help out with peace talks was communicated.

India again abstained from voting in UNSC on March 23, this time on a resolution moved by Russia to advocate for humanitarian assistance from all countries for refugees from Ukraine.

Modi's friendly relationship with Putin and Biden remains undiminished – it is not affected by US-Russia antagonism or Russia-China bonds. What has put India's position on a particularly high pedestal is the acknowledgement by the leadership of Quad at the virtual summit held on March 20, that Modi's approach of using bilateral relations for the benefit of the world on issues of war and peace was quite acceptable. This was said in the context of India's stand on the Ukraine-Russia military conflict. Biden would like India to uphold the sanctions against Russia, but he also understands the importance of the fact that Modi was the first world leader who firmly urged Putin in a personal conversation to halt military action in Ukraine to make way for peace process. India would certainly be exploring all avenues in concert with the other stakeholders of peace to get negotiations – tripartite if necessary – initiated for resumption of status quo and redressal of genuine concerns of both Ukraine and Russia.

Further prolongation of Russia's military offensive in Ukraine – which has already created a big refugee problem – may create a level of polarization that would lead to unforeseen consequences. (IANS)