The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is reported to have said in an interview very recently to the German paper, Bild, that he is prepared not to insist on his country’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership; one report quoted him as saying that he will not ask for membership on bended knees. Further, he said, in the Bild interview, that he is ready to discuss the status of the eastern region of Donbas. He added that he will do so only in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Unsurprisingly, this constructive rethink on the part of Mr. Zelensky has not received the attention it deserves. There was some mention of it in the Indian media but hardly any in the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to it in his press conference in Turkey a few days ago, describing it as providing some ground for optimism. However, nothing has come out of it so far.
Coming up short
Several questions arise. Why did Mr. Zelensky not take such a reasonable stance before the war started? Did he think that Mr. Putin would not attack since Mr. Putin had said he would not? But U.S. President Joe Biden had been warning him repeatedly about the invasion. Why did all those western mediators — President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany — not try to build on Mr. Zelensky’s offer? Why does Mr. Biden not pronounce himself on this matter? And why does Mr. Putin not seize upon it and agree to meet Mr. Zelensky? For him, is winning the war and installing a new regime more important than saving lives of people, both Ukrainians and Russians? He wants, justifiably, to create conditions whereby Russia will feel secure against further NATO advance eastward. Mr. Zelensky seems ready to offer him that security at least in principle.
Putin loses
The fact of the matter is that each of these players has an agenda of their own. For Mr. Putin, he seems determined to teach Mr. Zelensky a lesson, to remove him from office and to install a ‘friendly’ regime in Kyiv. If the occupation of Ukraine is the only way to achieve that objective, so be it, whatever the cost and however long it might take. Does he want to recreate the ‘Soviet’ empire, as alleged by some? Nobody knows what is in his mind. Even if Mr. Putin wins, he loses. A country crushed by Russian might could remain hostile to Russia. Resistance in some form will continue, instigated, abetted and aided by the West, making the life of the occupiers extremely difficult. Mr. Putin’s purported objective of ensuring the security of his country will not be achieved.
In these circumstances, it is conceivable that Mr. Putin might be overthrown in a palace or Kremlin coup. His close buddies are his buddies because they derive concrete benefits from their proximity to the boss. They would not take kindly to losing all the lucre that they have gained over the years.
The West wants the same thing in Russia as in China. They want these nations to become capitalist democracies. In the case of China, this objective will take a long time, if ever, to materialise. But in Russia, it seems tantalisingly achievable.
If the war in Ukraine drags on for a long time, it will suit the West, just as prolonged American entanglement in Afghanistan suited China and Russia. The Ukrainian misadventure will cost Mr. Putin dearly, internationally for sure, but also domestically. After all, the Russians regard the Ukrainians as kith and kin. Many of them have intermarried with Ukrainians and have families there. When body bags start arriving in Russia in increasing numbers, mothers and sisters will stage demonstrations that no amount of state repression will be able to contain. A large number of protests are taking place across the Russian federation, and many are being arrested. It is entirely conceivable that Mr. Putin may not survive, at least politically, for long.
Mr. Zelensky could, and should, have shown more statesmanship before Russia invaded his country. He surely had a good idea about Mr. Putin’s determination to do all he could to achieve his goal of preventing NATO coming even closer to his doorstep. He should have agreed to implement the Minsk accords because he knew that NATO membership was not within reach for a very long time, if ever. Now, the situation has reached a point where the U.S. will not facilitate an early end to the war; the total silence on the Ukraine President’s laudable initiative is testimony to that.
Mr. Zelensky has emerged as a great war hero; it is not difficult to arouse the spirit of nationalism and mobilise the population in a war effort. He has done a most admirable job of winning the hearts and the minds of people as well as, importantly, of policy makers around the world. His (virtual) speech to the U.S. Congress has won him some support too.
China’s stakes, India’s stand
Could China emerge as a valid mediator? How far and for how long will China go on to defend Mr. Putin? It has enormous economic and technological stakes in the West. China’s trade with Russia is less than a tenth of its trade with the EU and the U.S. combined. But it also does not want Russia to collapse into chaos or democracy. China does not want to ‘lose’ Russia. It is good for China to have another authoritarian regime next door. A big functioning democracy on both sides will be intolerable for China. Its statements, already strong, will become more critical of Russia’s actions in Ukraine in future. China will definitely wish the war to end soon and endeavour to make that happen.
Editorial | Not taking sides: On India and the Ukraine conflict
India has done well so far diplomatically. Its leaders should take public note of Mr. Zelensky’s outreach and support it fully. India’s abstention from several votes at the United Nations was justified on the ground of national interest. New Delhi’s relations with America have never been better. With Russia, it has a deep defence relationship and has also acquired a strong interest in the Russian oil industry over the past few years. However, India’s statements in explanation of the votes should be more forthright in expressing its disapproval about the conduct of the war. It should strongly deplore the indiscriminate bombardment that is causing a large number of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Ukraine. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons is irresponsible even though it may be only a threat. In the heat of war, anything can happen. All such loose talk about weapons of mass destruction ought to be firmly denounced. It is true that the global community is being bombarded, nonstop, by western propaganda. We will never have the whole picture. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss all reports as false propaganda. We may not be getting the whole truth, but what we are getting is not necessarily untruth.
We should not rule out, for all time, voting affirmatively on resolutions on the Ukraine situation. It has long been our position that the victim of aggression and the aggressor cannot be equated. If desirable, India may not name Russia in its statements, but India cannot maintain a silence on the terrible sufferings of the Ukrainian people.
Chinmaya R. Gharekhan is former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations
- The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is reported to have said in an interview very recently to the German paper, Bild, that he is prepared not to insist on his country’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership.
- Mr. Putin, he seems determined to teach Mr. Zelensky a lesson, to remove him from office and to install a ‘friendly’ regime in Kyiv.
- Mr. Zelensky could, and should, have shown more statesmanship before Russia invaded his country. He should have agreed to implement the Minsk accords because he knew that NATO membership was not within reach for a very long time, if ever.
COMMents
SHARE