BY MAJ GEN JAGATBIR SINGH, VSM (RETD)
The last time conventional troops advanced into Ukraine, it was in 1941 and they were led by the famed Panzer Armies of Germany in Operation Barbarossa. Initially, the Germans were greeted as liberators by some of the Ukrainian populace. In Galicia especially, there had long been a widespread belief that Germany, as the avowed enemy of Poland and the USSR, was the Ukrainians’ natural ally for the attainment of their independence. The illusion was quickly shattered as the Nazi army of course unleashed a trail of destruction including the killing of a large number of citizens, displacing millions; ethnic cleansing and enslavement. The Red Army subsequently turned the tables with their counter offensive and Ukraine remained an integral part of USSR even providing two of its leaders; Nikita Khrushchev who was born just East of the Ukrainian border and headed its Communist Party for many years from 1938 and of course Leonid Brezhnev, who was born in Ukraine and served under Khrushchev in the propaganda department and later, in 1939, as a regional Party Secretary.
Today the situation is vastly different, Ukraine is independent while Germany and Russia remain on different sides but Germany is now part of NATO and disinclined to provide combat troops to defend Ukraine, whereas Russia clearly sees the expansion of NATO into what it considers its strategic space as a red line. Moscow is now seen as willing to use military force to secure its interests across what it believes it should be its unquestioned sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and beyond but will the Western powers defend a country not part of NATO.
As per various published reports, when Mikhail Gorbachev was discussing the reunification of Germany with Helmut Kohl, he was promised by various leaders including the then US Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand to the East. In fact these promises were central to President Putin’s speech at Munich Security Conference in 2017 when he stated that the West was reneging on verbal commitments; “ And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact ? Where are those declarations today?
In April 2021, Russia mobilised tens of thousands of troops on the border with Ukraine, indicating to the West that an invasion might be imminent. Even larger moves began in November, prompting the more recent fears of war. In the summer, Moscow quietly pared back gas exports to Europe, pushing prices higher. Finally, in December, Russia proposed a treaty with the US and NATO that would redefine power in Europe.
That US and its allies naturally did not agree to those, which included a pledge that Ukraine and other Soviet states would never join NATO and withdrawal of NATO forces from former Eastern Bloc nations. The Russian-proposed among other things, that today’s alliance member countries withdraw all NATO-deployed weaponry that was not there as of May 27, 1997, thus restoring the 1997 configuration of the Russia-NATO balance. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Estonia became members in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020. Russian proposals implied that all these countries would have to effectively renounce all military protection extended to them by NATO, a highly unlikely proposition. Ukraine now finds itself at the centre of a much larger confrontation.
As Russia demonstrated in Kazakhstan recently, it can also move fast to take advantage of events. The recent protests there were largely sparked by domestic anger over fuel price rises, themselves an unintended consequence of Russia’s energy policy. But Moscow was swift to take advantage of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) between post-Soviet states including Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Belarus. The last country offers an opportunity for positioning more troops. Moscow has demonstrated its ability to take military decisions and affect deployments at lightning speed (e.g., in Syria and Kazakhstan). In 2008 during the Russia-Georgia War, Moscow began using force to prevent NATO expansion.
Russia has made itself a defining player in several conflicts, principally Syria and Libya, while defence exports and mercenaries such as the Wagner Group boost its influence around the globe. The ultimate audience, for this, is usually domestic – Putin needs to keep the Russian people, institutions and power brokers believing he is strong, and the others weak.
In framing the Ukraine face-off as a confrontation of “great powers”, Putin has made sure Russia is once again treated as a major power. He put more of the onus on the US as key interlocutor for settling the dispute, side lining President Zelensky; and engaging in a largely a bilateral discussion with the US. Maybe the US focus on the Indo- Pacific to contain China and the pull out of troops from Afghanistan, had been perceived as an opportunity by Russia to force it to pull back in Europe.
The latest military and political escalation by Russia and recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic is therefore not solely about Ukraine. Crimea of course was recognised as a federal territory of Russia in 2014 and Sevastopol is unlikely to be a NATO port. Hence this standoff offers Russia a unique chance to achieve closure on issues which they haven’t been able to resolve for the last twenty years, in particular NATO’s dominance of Europe since 1991. For the Kremlin, the escalation is about carving out a new geostrategic role for Russia in a revised world order. Ukraine is the area where they are able to project power, to demonstrate its ability and willingness to use force.
The clarity in its red lines are being revealed. The first time we saw this was at the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit where he opposed the US plans to deploy missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was discussed and also opposed Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership bids. Incidentally, Stalin was a Georgian and Russia is opposed to both Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO as they view it as a direct threat to Russia.
Sanctions presently seem to be the tool in the hands of the West including targeted sanctions against certain oligarchs considered close to the Russian leadership but will these lead to more disarray in the intertwined world of global trade. Of course stock markets the world over and particularly in Russia will plummet and oil and gas prices will rise further crippling the global economy which is barely recovering from the pandemic. While Europe will cut gas imports from Russia, in time these will be diverted to China thus increasing the linkages between the two countries.
But what is the likely collateral damage as far as India is concerned? The fact is that India is close to all the major players Russia, US, EU and Ukraine, hence we cannot afford to take sides. However, neither can we remain oblivious of these events? As a nation of growing stature with political and diplomatic linkages with the parties involved we need to seize this opportunity by trying to broker a settlement between the various nations. Though agreements will be hard to negotiate, given the deep divisions, India will benefit from a reconciliation.
India has an inventory of over 60% of arms which are of Russian origin and include T-90 tanks, BMP-2 ICV’s, AD systems, missiles, SU-30 and MiG 21 aircraft, Attack Helicopters, aircraft carrier, submarines and ships , and more recently manufacturing the AK 203 Assault Rifle. Both countries are also jointly producing the BrahMos missile which is also being exported to the Philippines. In fact Russian arms and equipment has been the mainstay of our forces post 1965. India cannot afford its relationship with Moscow while their weapon platforms continue to serve as the backbone of Indian defence forces. Sanctions will therefore have a direct impact on the availability of spares and replacements as well as new equipment being inducted which will have a direct bearing on our operational preparedness.
Imposition of CAASTA with regard to the S 400 missile systems is another possibility. Irrespective of the stance being taken by the Biden administration presently, public opinion may force a tougher line to be taken. The US Defence Department spokesman Ned Price recently stated; “Whether it is India, whether it is any other country, or any other country, we continue to urge all countries to avoid major new transactions for Russian weapon systems.” The unvarnished fact is that India cannot afford to face a situation where it is forced to cut defence ties with Russia.
On the other hand, the US is our biggest trade partner and its investment in India is also one the largest, in addition the Indian diaspora in the US is extremely large, wealthy and influential and we also have a large student population and close ties across all spectrums including defence.
China of course is another matter, growing confrontation between the West and Russia will surely push Russia to embrace China more openly. President Xi has been quoted by state television as saying after his conversation with President Putin; “At present certain international forces are arbitrarily interfering in the internal affairs of China and Russia under the guise of democracy and human rights”. This will have an effect in the sub – continent and may also lead China to drawing its own red lines over Taiwan. Ironically in the early 1970’s the US made overtures to China to prevent a Sino- Soviet partnership as they feared the rise of Communism today they are driving the Russians in that direction.
For India maintenance of close relationship with Russia as an imperative in view of the confrontation being facied from China. During the 2+2 Defence and Foreign ministerial dialogue, India mentioned “extraordinary militarisation” in its neighbourhood and “unprovoked aggression” along its Northern border as some of its chief challenges.
The US may not understand the reasons for India’s neutrality, thereby forcing it to take sides. Contradictions in our relationship may emerge even as there are convergences on China. Though the administration is aware of our political compulsions, public opinion can differ.
The other issue is whether, US focus on Europe will divert its attention from the Indo- Pacific and embolden China to take advantage of the situation. A weakened US capability in the Indo- Pacific due to greater resource allocation in Europe doesn’t bode well for the region. China of course has historically always believed in seizing the moment as has been demonstrated by their actions in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis and in 2020 during the pandemic both defining events globally.
President Putin is making it clear that he wants regional Western influence rolled back, he may be emboldened by the fact that the Americans have recently pulled out of Afghanistan with the backing of public opinion. The US seems unwilling to use troops however, over the horizon operations as being advocated in Afghanistan are unlikely to be effective against a peer adversary with a military capability backed by a strong economy and exhibiting a willingness to use force.
The Russians are well aware that ‘no plan survives contact’, hence the conflict may pan out in a different manner than perceived. Europe which had been in the rear view mirror as far as the US was concerned as their sights were focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Indo- Pacific is now the region where the spotlight rests.
Ukraine is said to be derived from the Russian word ‘Okraina’ meaning borderland and was the Kingdom of ’Rus’, the notable ruler of which from 980 to 1015 was Vladimir. There is no doubt that this is a core strategic interest for Russia and that a NATO expansion has touched a raw nerve. Vladimir was also known as the “Great”; it’s no coincidence that the man who is in the spotlight now shares his name and wants to share his legacy also as he strives to restore Russia to its ‘rightful place’ in the world order.
(The author is an Indian Army Veteran. Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited).