The situation surrounding the Ukraine conflict is becoming even more complicated. The US is in the election zone, and that means no move can be made that could harm the Democratic presidential candidate. After supporting the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, any move to ease tensions or open the door for dialogue will be politically nearly impossible.
The choice is between escalating or deferring any serious new offensive steps. That’s where the discussion of allowing Zelensky to use NATO-supplied long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory comes into play. Ukraine is already striking deep into Russia with drones and has also launched a ground invasion of Russia in Kursk. But for Russia, it would mean a major escalation by NATO if its British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles were used against Russia, although they have been used against Ukrainian territories that Russia has taken over. Russia has accepted that difference in practice and has not raised the stakes as President Vladimir Putin has.
Britain decides to escalate tensions
The Russian president has warned that such a move would mean NATO entering a direct conflict with Russia because these missiles cannot be launched without guidance from US satellites and indeed by NATO staff on the ground in Ukraine, as the Ukrainian military would not know how to technically orient them to the target. Putin has declared that Russia will take appropriate steps to counter this escalation. What this could mean is a matter of speculation as Russia may have options below the nuclear threshold.
Britain, as usual, is determined to escalate the conflict. Five of its former defense secretaries want Ukraine to be allowed to use long-range weapons even without US approval. Britain’s deep-seated hostility toward Russia seems almost compulsive. Its excessive warmongering may be intended to spur the US to escalate, as well as act as a willing front for the US so that the latter appears more “responsible.” The US, which is ultimately responsible for managing the consequences of escalation, not Europe, is hesitant to allow the use of its long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia, but is willing to approve the use of British and French missiles. The fantasy would be that the US will not be directly involved, although when Putin mentions NATO being involved – because these missiles require NATO technical assistance to launch – he is implicating the US as well.
Western narratives on Ukraine
Zelenskyy’s strategy seems to be to drag NATO further into the conflict, no matter the ultimate cost to Ukraine or Europe, because the survival of his own regime is involved. The Western narrative on Ukraine is simple: Russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a small European country; the attack is unprovoked and violates the international order; if Russia succeeds it will be the next threat to Western Europe; Russia cannot be allowed to win, and so Ukraine must be supported. Zelenskyy has exploited this simple narrative to ask the West for more and more arms, claiming that this is not just a Ukrainian fight but a European fight. He now intends to visit the US to discuss his “victory plan” with Biden.
The US and Europe openly want to use this conflict to impose a strategic defeat on Russia, and if that seems impossible despite the imposition of harsh sanctions, at the very least, to continue to weaken and harm Russia by prolonging its proxy war against it. This was the sentiment in a joint op-ed by the US and UK intelligence chiefs in the Financial Times, which stressed that it is important to continue to support Ukraine, with the CIA chief even seeing virtue in Ukraine’s ground offensive against Russia in Kursk. The US Secretary of State and the UK Foreign Secretary also recently jointly visited Kiev and announced more financial aid to Ukraine.
India’s options
It is against this backdrop that India is trying to play some role in moving the two sides towards a negotiated solution to the conflict. Despite the complexity of the issue, the inconsistent positions of the two sides on some fundamental points, and the fact that no peace effort with Russia and Ukraine can move forward without the US, India has not backed down from taking this initiative. We have not announced any contact with the US on this subject.
In fact, if India wants to play an important role, it will have to involve Europe as well.
Modi is likely to discuss India’s initiative with Biden when he visits the US this month, as he knows Putin’s mind after his talks with him and the feedback he received from National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. But Biden is unlikely to change his position in favour of dialogue and diplomacy in the wake of the US presidential election, when he has always opted to wage a proxy war against Russia for larger geopolitical reasons beyond Ukraine.
The rhetoric against Russia has escalated, accusing it of spreading misinformation in the United States and globally, and efforts to impose sanctions against it around the world. R T and gathering information related to Russian media for intelligence activities etc. With German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visiting India shortly, Modi will have an opportunity to discuss peace initiatives with him as well.
Doval’s visit
India has enhanced its peacekeeping image by sending Doval to St. Petersburg to personally brief Putin on the talks Prime Minister Modi had with Zelensky in Kyiv. Despite the controversial comments made by Zelensky to the Indian press on India’s purchase of Russian oil, the call for India to join the post-first summit communiqué in Switzerland to hold a peace summit, and the different views on the agenda of the next peace summit expressed in EAM Jaishankar’s press briefing in Kyiv, the private talks with Zelensky have brought out enough substance that it is worth personally briefing Putin. Is it that Ukraine’s position in private is less rigid on key issues than that expressed publicly? In welcoming Doval in an unprecedented manner, Putin is supporting India’s peace efforts, though it is hard to imagine that he would resign from his original position on Ukraine’s territory and NATO membership.
From what the Ukrainian ambassador to India later told the press on India’s peace efforts, Ukraine appears to continue to aggressively define its position. The ambassador made a misstep in asking India to convince Moscow to join the peace talks, linking the legitimacy of India’s bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council to its taking a position on global issues and not just being a courier or messenger or post box and delivering messages from one side to the other. He reiterated Zelensky’s position that a condition for India to hold the next peace summit would be to join the Burgenstock communiqué.
Overall, it is difficult to assess the dynamics of the peace initiatives undertaken by India, as the obstacles to peace at present are very evident.
(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal views of the author
