The war in Ukraine continues. No expert or leader can predict when it ends. Since it is a proxy war for all we know between Russia and the United States and its allies, one can pontificate on the attitudes of the countries at war. International political realists argue that, now-a-days, the wars between the big powers do not simply become wars – they turn out to be matters of prestige. The Ukraine war seems to have entered that prestige phase.

The Russian president Putin wants annexation of Ukraine, or parts of the country, at any cost. The western powers, led by America maintained that a protracted conflict gives them an opportunity to entangle and enervate Russia economically and militarily. Ukraine is fighting desperately for its independence and sovereignty. None of these countries seem to be bothered about the human costs.
In any war, there are victors and vanquished, winners and losers. Prima facie, the winners are the United States, China and India and the losers are Russia, European Union and Ukraine. According to Marc Saxer, German political-economic-strategic analyst from Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a think tank of the Social Democratic Party, US may be fighting its geo-political rival Russia to the last Ukranian standing. Washington has managed to deplete the Russian aggressive power and deflect the pressure against NATO’s eastern flank. The NATO has revived after the vacillations during Trump years. Germany has accepted responsibility to guarantee the security from the Baltics to the Sahel. The opposition to 2 per cent GDP has given way to massive rearmament programme. Saxer conjures that in the medium run, the change of stands by Germany may lighten the US burden in Western Eurasia, so that Washington can give its attention to the hegemonic struggle with China in East Asia.
China is a gainer as Russia becomes emaciated. Beijing gets Moscow as a junior partner. The Russian gas companies will supply to China at a cheaper rate than the market prices. China becomes the only rival to US. China replaces Russia as the second Super Power, the status Beijing so keenly desired. Beijing will want to be the number one country of the world. This is another subject for discussion, that is, if this ambition of China is realisable. Scholars and observers have begun to think about it.
The third gainer is India. It continues to stand with both Western bloc as well as Russia. New Delhi buys Russian oil at a big discount. It is not clear where India positions herself in the international geo-politics in the longer run. For now, protagonists of India’s foreign policy pat themselves on their back for taking a neutral stand on Ukraine war. I have argued in this column more than once if that has been a right stand.
The European Union has failed to read Moscow’s mind and has been disturbed by the Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. EU had to fall back on United States to prevent Russia from disturbing the East European order. Both Germany and France have to staggeringly enhance their expenses for hard power. They will have to find alternative sources of supply of gas. Europe got caught between USA for its security and Russia for energy supply. The deficit in European Union’s foreign and defence policy got exposed in the wake of Ukrainian war.
Ukraine is of course the biggest loser. It has become a pawn like Afghanistan between two big powers – USA and Russia. It has suffered heavy loss of wo(men) and material in addition to territory. Ukraine may not have had any other choice than fighting back for its independence, as the Russian forces marched in. But, the question is, could it have avoided the war by refusing the Western overtures! That was not to be. Ukraine must fight to the finish or find a way to ceasefire and then cessation of the war.
That said, let us explore the scope for New Delhi’s intervention as a peace-broker which may catapult India to the world stage. New Delhi has conducted its international affairs on a platform of neutrality which was called ideologically and strategically, non-alignment. I have argued consistently that this policy was neither desirable nor doable. A discussion on the efficacy of non-alignment is out of the purview of the current formulation. India has participated in the military operations externally, by sending troops to UN peace-keeping missions in countries like Sudan, Kosovo and Congo. New Delhi also has stayed away from the Gulf war in 1990s or American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. India has stayed neutral in Ukraine.
India’s neutrality has not paid off in anyway, rather it has harmed India’s interests. New Delhi did not learn of this lapse after China annexed Tibet in 1950s and later in Chinese aggression on the country and annexation of Indian territories. The Western powers had expected India to join their bloc as China was breathing down India’s neck. The situation after so many years remains the same. China is at India’s border.
India could perhaps take two diplomatic steps – one, inward, and another to help resolve the Ukrainian crisis. New Delhi has to rethink its neutrality and make strategic partners. The obvious partner is the Western bloc for two reasons. One is to enhance its GDP to 10 trillion USD from under 3 trillion USD at present. In order to do so, New Delhi has to engage with G-7 economies. It should complete the FTA negotiations with European Union and Britain. Second reason for going to the West is to secure itself against Chinese incursion into Indian territory. Some experts are suggesting that Quad could be turned into a military alliance of sorts. India could nudge Quad into going down that road. On the contrary, New Delhi seems most reluctant of all in militarising Quad.
India’s smart and strategic military alliances will secure her from Chinese threats and possible aggression, minimise the enormous military expenditure, and reduce her dependence on Russia. According to SIPRI estimate in International Arms Transfers (2021) factsheet, “India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2017-21 and accounted for 11 per cent of total global arms import in the period”. Is this military strategy sustainable or advisable for a developing country with a 2.7 trillion economy? Is it realistic to engage in an arms race with China, whose economy is around 14 trillion USD? The disarmament experts show that the cost of one fighter aircraft can run the primary schools of the entire country for twenty years and likewise, cost of a submarine will run the old-age homes for a similar period. The estimate may not be exact but the principle holds.
Today, India draws greater respect and attention from the world community. It is a democracy, respects rule-based world order, freedom and human rights across the world. Can India use that goodwill to mediate in the war and bring it to an end? I have argued before that India should bring about a rapprochement between Russia and USA, since the major threat to the world system comes from China. India should thus decouple Russia from China, and make Western powers see the real danger to world politics and security. This is a tall order but not impossible. India has a history of doing such mediation in Korean crisis in 1953. Her impartiality and diplomatic dexterity were appreciated by the world leaders. The great statesmen are known for breaking such new grounds. Our Prime Minister is well-placed to perform this challenging role and it is certainly worth his while.

Email:--------------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.com