Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

The Ukrainian war has completed one thousand days with horrible deaths and devastation that has been going with it. There is no end to the bloodshed in sight in days to come. On the contrary, it has just been escalated both by Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine was allowed by Joe Biden to use the missiles supplied by the United States in the Russian territory outside the war zone. Russia has responded to Putin’s lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, Russia has launched ballistic missiles into Ukraine capable of carrying nuclear warheads. 

As the war raged, Russia launched 188 drones against most regions of Ukraine in a nighttime attack, as reported by the Ukrainian air force. This attack marked a record number of drones used in a single day. As per the available reports, most of the drones were intercepted but quite a few hit the apartment buildings and damaged the critical infrastructure.

 Admittedly, it is hard to get authentic data from either source — Ukraine or Russia. By far, the most authentic data, available from the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, Moscow has seized 2,700 sqkms of Ukrainian land this year compared to 4,65 sqkms in 2023. Russia occupies about 28% of Ukrainian land. From many sources, it is evident that thousands and millions of people have fled for their lives in this war and billions worth of properties and resources have been lost.

 The question staring at the whole world is how to end this war. From India’s perspective on the war, New Delhi has been maintaining from day one that the conflict could not be solved in the battleground; it can only be done through dialogue and diplomacy, in other words, negotiation. But, can you negotiate with a lion when your head is in its mouth? That raises a practical question on the efficacy of diplomacy when there is obvious power disparity.

 We will do well to recall that negotiation between two blocs was possible when there was a balance of power between the USA and the Soviet Union. That is how the world experienced several negotiations on arms control and disarmament etc. It is another thing, ironically, that each disarmament negotiation ended in further armament on either side. As one party discovered the disparity in one kind of weapon, it added more of that kind to maintain the parity. Also, negotiations took place between the victors in the Second World War.

 There was a brief period of unipolar world led by the United States. The decline of the United States as a single super became evident; and so did the simultaneous dilution of multilateral institutions like the United Nations. The hierarchy among the world powers disappeared leading to a kind of anarchy; the authority over any state agency became non-existent. The countries in the world turned to self-help and an instinct for survival.

 Consequently, conflicts became commonplace. As the world powers failed to resolve conflicts in any part, some of them turned into wars. The wars in the Middle East and Ukraine are pathetic examples of stark failure of diplomacy. Shall we then believe the suggestion that, in order to have peace, one may have to fight a war? In the sense of demonstrating one’s power to compel the adversary for negotiation, this dynamic between war and peace is somewhat understandable. But what is more acceptable and the least harmful is the power of deterrence.

 In the case of Ukraine, where a full-blown war goes unabated, is there any prospect for negotiation? Not as things are now on the ground. Russia would like to fight to the finish, which means Ukraine surrendering. Ukraine will continue to fight till the last man, as it gets the support of the West. It is still a fight between Russia and Ukraine, although called a proxy war between Russia and the West as the latter is supplying Ukraine with military and financial aid. In order to bring about the balance of power or in this case terror, the West has to openly declare war against Russia unless Moscow agrees to a ceasefire and comes to the negotiating table. The terms of the negotiation are subject to the negotiation itself. 

Russia is already using troops from North Korea and Yemen etc. The United Kingdom is ready to fight on the side of Ukraine at any time. So, it is not out of order for the West to come out openly. It will not lead to a Third World War more than it is now. Ukrainian war will not draw China, another military and economic power to make it a world war. Unless Russian President Putin is made to realise that he cannot win and can only self-destruct, he may not agree to the terms set by Ukraine and its supporters. Russia has to vacate the land it has taken from Ukraine after February 2022 if not after the annexation of Crimea.

 If the world leaders care to dig into the personality and perspectives of Putin, they will be wary of trusting him. He detests America-led world order and seeks to destabilise the European security order. His main excuse for the so-called special operation in Ukraine was to prevent the latter from joining NATO. Joining NATO is a process. Did Ukraine apply for the NATO membership? On the other hand, Putin ended up pushing two of his other neighbours Sweden and Finland into NATO.

 Moreover, Putin in a ‘partnership that lasts forever’ with China, seeks to establish a new world order where China has control over the India-Pacific region and Russia in Eurasia. Both countries together want to establish a new world order led by institutions like BRICS, SCO and others. Ukraine, therefore, is a piece of such a big plan. If the Global West wishes to counter that, for the sake of democracy, human rights pluralism etc., they have to seriously recalibrate their strategies.

Coming back to diplomacy, no dialogue is feasible if there is a big gap in the power of deterrence among the negotiating parties. A bipolar world is conducive to negotiation between somewhat equal powers. Such a scenario is emerging – the Global West on one side and China-Russia on the other, the Global South choosing either of the sides formally or issue-basis.

 Let us face some established truths. A multi-polar world is a strategic fantasy. Strategic autonomy is political romanticism. Security overrides other priorities. Collective security is wise and less expensive. In an interdependent world, staying alone is unviable. The habit of going with everyone makes one less faithful.

 However, when the West begins to club China and Russia, bipolarity will soon emerge and make diplomacy easier to conduct. If Donald Trump cuts a deal with Putin by throwing Zelenskyy or Poland under the bus, it will have grave consequences for the subsequent world order, particularly, in view of the intentions of Putin and Xi-Jinping.

 Yes, diplomacy should win and war as a strategy must lose. But for diplomacy to succeed, the countries should show the collective capacity that they are ready for a war.