Review of World Affairs (RWA)
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
War in Ukraine
Russia Ready to End War, If…
Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations “in a moment” if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov [ whose own grown-up daughter has publicly protested against the war ] said yesterday (Reuters, March 7).
Peskov demanded that:
- Ukraine cease all military action
- Change its constitution to enshrine neutrality
- Acknowledge the Crimea as Russian territory
- Recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.
It is astounding that Putin’s Russia makes these unacceptable demands, having itself unilaterally started the unjust war against all humanitarian norms, the rules of International Law and the Charta of the United Nations.
Unfortunately, the Western nations have failed Ukraine before, and are failing it again, being at a loss to stop Putin and putting in place robust measures. If they fear for their own safety, they should at the least:
- Ensure that Russia is expelled from the U.N.
- Organize a UN international military force to come to the immediate aid of Ukraine.
UN General Assembly Condemns Russian Aggression
Last week, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly for a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for immediate withdrawal of its military forces, in a global expression of outrage that highlighted Russia’s increasing political and economic isolation. Vladimir Putin has singlehandedly pushed Russia into being a pariah and rogue state.
In the emergency session of the General Assembly, 141 of the total 193 member states voted for the resolution, and only five voted against – Russia itself, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria. Longstanding allies Cuba and Nicaragua joined China in abstaining. India, a longstanding friend, if not an ally, also abstained.
The resolution stated that the UN “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. It demanded that “the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine” and “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces”.
The resolution is not legally binding but is an expression of the views of the UN membership, aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow and its ally, Belarus.
It is the first time in 40 years the Security Council (UNSC) has referred a crisis to UNGA and only the 11th time an emergency session of UNGA has been called since 1950.
It was summoned under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, in which global threats are referred to the body “if the Security Council because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility to act as required to maintain international peace and security.”
In a reflection of the worldwide disapproval at the brutal Russian assault, six of Moscow’s allies who stuck by Russia in 2014, in a similar vote after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, abstained on this occasion: Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Another supporter from 2014, Venezuela did/could not vote. Its voting rights had been suspended as a result of unpaid UN membership dues!
This time around, Nepal too voted for the resolution, underlining its independent, non-aligned foreign policy, and righting a wrong of 2014, when it had abstained.
India has demonstrated that by abstaining, its policy of sitting on the fence and hedging its bets, is not in alignment with a responsible great power. Ergo, in a possible reform of UNSC, India is not fit to be promoted to permanent member status.
Subtle Change in International Relations
Putin’s war in Ukraine has brought to the fore, various changes in International Relations not previously apparent.
First, it is now clear that the post-Cold War era, i.e., the period of world affairs after the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 has now come to an end. The new period is still in the making, and for want of a better term can be described as the ‘post-post-Cold War era”.
Second, the United States is still the most powerful nation on earth, but China is hot on its heels – it is definitely the second-most powerful nation, and a rising super-power to boot. The U.S. is according to various parameters, a nation in decline and can hold its own, only with the help of friends and allies in Europe and East Asia.
Third, the leaders of Russia after the breakup of the erstwhile super-power the USSR/Soviet Union – Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin – failed to consolidate their country. For this, it would have needed a great man of vision like Mikael Gorbachev, but he was unfortunately shoved to the side. Russia could have – with strenuous efforts – retained its status. But Yeltsin and Putin together degraded its power enormously, so that a steady decline was inevitable.
Putin succeeded enormously – most, unfortunately – in converting his country into a kleptocratic autocracy.
He wants to restore the assumed and dreamed of the greatness of the erstwhile Russian empire, but he is undoubtedly on the path of failure. Russia will be reduced to a middle-level power on the level of France and the United Kingdom with little to say beyond the European continent [Russia, of course, will also remain an Asian power, but with its capacity starkly reduced].
Fourth, the system of collective security as envisioned by the Charta of the United Nations has completely failed.
The executive arm of the United Nations failed dismally to condemn Putin’s aggressive war against a must smaller and innocent Ukraine.
The so-called great powers – all permanent members of the Security Council, and, therefore, armed with the veto power, failed miserably to condemn Putin’s blatant aggression.
The General Assembly did finally succeed in charging Russia with an overwhelming majority, but the resolution was euphemistically termed non-binding, i.e. it had no teeth!
It was actually a useless diplomatic exercise.
Fifth, the manoeuvrings in the United Nations only demonstrated that this world body had been stymied and that two of its leading members – China and India – were unwilling to condemn Russia because of their own national interests and were, therefore, not ‘mature’ great powers.
The countries of South Asia have to be very wary of both. Unfortunately, Pakistan also found itself in the same boat.
However, this has not brought a tectonic shift to the balance of power in South Asia itself.
Nepal’s policy of positive non-alignment and dynamic neutrality has received a new lease of life – as has that of Bhutan and the Maldives [and also of newly, politically re-vitalized Afghanistan].
The international politics of South Asia has become different and more complicated and two security systems will vie with each other – the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) and the China-led Belt–and–Road Initiative (BRI).
With Nepal finally ratifying the US granted MCC-Compact, the U.S. has stolen a march on China.
Possible Scenarios of Putin’s War
There are various possibilities of how the war in Ukraine can end, but most media critics and national security pundits surmise that it can be boiled down to three.
- The most unlikely end game is that of regime change in Moscow. The ruling elite and Putin’s inner circle is very tightknit. However, so the argument goes, there is a limit to the extent of suffering individuals are willing to bear.
In the near future, it is possible to envisage Russian military failure [which can take many forms, including being bogged down hopelessly in the hostile Ukrainian terrain], combined with rising popular unrest and the maneuverings of the elite which lead to the elimination of Putin from the supreme seat of power.
However, this is an extremely low-probability scenario, according to star columnist Ross Douthat of the New York Times (March 4).
- The second possibility is that of a brutal Russian victory, which most decent people do not wish for, but is likely given that Russia has the upper hand and is winning the actual war at the moment.
A ‘state of neither war, nor peace’ looms in the future, where Ukraine is under Russian political/military domination and faces a raging insurgency/guerrilla war run by a government-in-exile, backed by the West.
But this too is unsustainable over time given the economic travails in the entire world.
It would also be geo-politically highly unstable.
The continued financial and cultural isolation imposed by the West would basically force Russia into the arms of China and transform the current loose Sino-Russian alignment into a true Moscow-Beijing Axis. The European Union would be too weak geo-strategically to act independently and would, therefore, for the foreseeable future be part and parcel of the world-wide Western security alliance [including Japan, South Korea and Japan]. The world would again be bipolar.
- The preferable endgame for the warring parties as well as those on the periphery would be a swift ceasefire, a balance of what’s plausible, pragmatic and humanitarian (NYT/Douthat). The move from cease-fire to stability would require sustained and fine-tuned diplomacy, perhaps under the auspices of the UN Secretary General.
However, at the current stage of the conflict, there is only one person Putin will listen to, considering Putin’s extreme isolation – that is President Xi Jinping of China, who could still play a positive role and bring about a turning point in the senseless war.
Germany’s Dramatic Reversal on National Security
In January this year, as Russia’s massive military buildup threatened Ukraine, the German coalition government composed of the Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals declined to support Kyiv with lethal aid.
Instead, it sent Kyiv 5,000 military helmets and a US $ Dollar 5 million field hospital. It also blocked other NATO countries from sending German-made weapons to Ukraine. This was heavily criticized all around. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended his country’s weapons export policy by noting that Germany avoided exporting weapons to conflict areas. It was also a very sensitive issue as the weapons would be directed against Russia, which had suffered enormously under Nazi Germany in World War II.
However, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the overall situation changed dramatically. Germany immediately sent 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defence systems to Ukraine. Berlin also unblocked other EU countries from sending German-made equipment.
Scholz emphasized that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a “turning point” for Germany.
A day later, Scholz went even further and visualized exactly how dramatic this turning point would be. In just a single speech to the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, Scholz modified decades of German foreign and defence policy.
Most strikingly, Scholz proposed massive investments in Germany’s defence and security, reversing the country’s reluctance to build up its military. It’s a seismic shift not just for the country, but potentially for Europe and the trans-Atlantic relationship (Vox.com/Feb.5).
Scholz said Germany would henceforth invest much more in its security, “in order to protect our freedom and our democracy.” He established a Euro 100 billion special fund for investments in the Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces.
He now committed Germany to spend more than 2 percent of its GDP on defence – a target all NATO member countries agreed to meet, but one that less than half actually do [including Germany!]. Germany spent a total of about Euro 47 billion on defence in 2021.
His vision went even further. Scholz promised that Germany would seek to guarantee a more secure energy supply – away from dependence on Russia and its natural gas. This came a little more than a week after he had frozen approval of the Russian-built Nord Stream 2 direct gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.
Scholz called Putin’s war a “Zeitenwende”, normally translated as ‘a turning point’ or ‘watershed moment’. But it is more than that – it captures the mood of the dawning of a new era.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment