And so it begins. Long uneasy about its exposed western flank, Russian forces have moved into Ukraine, with the support of ally Belarus, despite President Alexander Lukashenko’s denial, in what seems to be a three-pronged invasion. While there was a widespread belief that Russia would fund a virtual invasion into the separatist areas, few considered this kind of a shock and awe operation in action, which takes the world back to another century.
Much of the world has reacted with outrage and shock, but not all of it. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan is in Moscow, exchanging pleasantries with Russian President Vladamir Putin; Syria is accusing the West of creating the crisis; and China, while conveying its respect for ‘sovereignty’ and territorial integrity, remarked on the ‘complex historical context of this issue.’ That’s a dangerous thread, especially when it comes to the fact that China decides history for itself. Meanwhile, Iran seems to have indicated ‘an understanding of Russia’s security concerns.’ And Turkey’s position is complex. It was asked by Ukraine to close entry into the Black Sea under its obligations as a NATO member and as part of the International Montreux Convention. Earlier, six Russian warships and a submarine transited the straits to do so. So far, Turkey has done nothing. But then neither has the rest of the world. Think of the lessons others are learning. Particularly a large belligerent neighbour of India.
The war that everybody knew
First, everybody with half a brain knew that some kind of war was coming. Satellite imagery and data had emerged to show a massive military build-up that began ostensibly for a ‘scheduled military exercise’ including in Belarus. Open-source intelligence noted the largest build-up since the Cold War, in late January, and the United States warned on 14 January that the process of Russia invading Ukraine “could begin between mid-January and mid-February”. In hindsight, the intelligence was precise. Yet, all that was done was sending ‘defensive aid’ totalling some $200 million to enable Ukraine to defend itself. All that while, Russia denied all allegations.
Remember, China was holding military exercises opposite Ladakh in January 2020, and a move still closer in May was known. Yet the Galwan clash was unexpected, a range of political signals were missed. This is not about extraordinary intelligence capabilities. It is about realistic assessment. The good part? That India reacted strongly and without hesitation when it came to China.
Ukraine, despite having formidable armed forces, seems to have relied on everybody else.
Also Read: What is Putin’s intention behind Ukraine invasion
The rationale behind the Russian invasion
In his address to the nation, President Putin made an impassioned reference to the historical ties between the two neighbours, even denying in 2008 that Ukraine was a State at all. Naturally, this claim is hotly contested by most (but not all) Ukrainians. But there is undoubtedly a long history of association that predates even the Soviet Union. True, dictators and the like are always using history to justify their actions, with the most liberal in interpretation being China.
Beijing is one who is fond of claiming territory that does not belong to it at all, using the most bizarre explanations, and sometimes no explanations at all. It claims some 90,000 sq km of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory. It calls the area “Zangnan” in the Chinese language and makes repeated references to “South Tibet”, which betrays that this is also linked to its occupation of Tibet. Besides, less than 10 per cent of the population is of Tibetan origin, so that makes its cartographic adventures without a leg to stand on. Taiwan is not recognised as a separate State by anyone, given its precise history. But Arunachal has been with India since its inception, which is a mere 75 years. Not even a lifetime. So at any point, it’s going to be difficult for President Xi Jinping to cry into his sleeve about historical associations and try and grab it. It’s not impossible, but difficult unless a separatist movement emerges that ‘demands’ Chinese help. Watch out.
Legal rationale for invading Ukraine
The Russian representative has claimed Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as the basis for the invasion, which refers to “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Before this, Russia had legally recognised the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics. So this was about assisting another ‘country’ against the depredations of the Ukrainians who had had anything but a light hand in dealing with rebels.
In an intervention last year, Russia’s permanent representative Vassily Nebenzia dryly noted the overuse of Article 51, pointing out that there was no Security Council resolution authorising the use of force on the territory of Syria. The issue was the collective self-defence of Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but not specifying such action on another’s territory. In other words, US action in Syria was illegal and unilateral, especially in supporting opposing armed groups and denying Syria access to its own oil fields. Besides, the Article was not meant to be used against non-State actors; which explains why Russia recognised the two republics. Remember also that these are Russian-speaking enclaves with strong ties to Moscow.
Also Read: Vladimir Putin is playing with fire in Ukraine, starting a war that Russians don’t want
Putin and his ‘sphere of influence’
There is an even stronger underlying rationale. Putin refers to the continuously creeping push of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) countries into the areas around Russia into what was formerly ‘Soviet space’, and with a ‘sphere of influence’. This is a term that was used pejoratively during the Cold War against Moscow, hardly ever being applied to the ‘Bay of Pigs’ adventure, when Washington tried, and failed spectacularly, to oust the Fidel Castro administration that had allowed the Soviet’s ingress.
The Cuban missile crisis was when Washington discovered not only Soviet aircraft but also the construction of missile sites, leading to what was probably the closest the world came to outright nuclear war. In other words, the Soviets trespassed on the US’ own ‘sphere of influence’, threatening Washington itself. That is precisely what has happened now.
Notably, the Chinese uphold this view. Its foreign ministry spokesperson caustically observed: “Certain countries should ask themselves: When the US drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?” In other words, Beijing also subscribes to the ‘Sphere of Influence’ theory, though this seems to be in reference to US activities around Taiwan and the South China Sea. But its territorial claims, as well as its activities in neighbouring countries, certainly seems to show its ‘sphere’ overlaps with what India considers its own backyard. That’s near-certain trouble ahead.
Also Read: Here’s how Russia is attacking Ukraine defence best — cyberattacks
The nature of war
So far, it seems that this war has involved an onslaught of cyberattacks prior to and during the invasion, possibly even stronger intelligence operations, and a ‘shock and awe’ plan that has committed troops, but is focused entirely on controlling Ukrainian air space, along with a very clear warning of a nuclear threat. It also involved the territory of an ally, Belarus. Only time will tell whether this intent of regime change without the actual occupation of Ukraine will degenerate into a long drawn out, manpower-intensive, civil war or terrorist action. This is an information war, and so far it is tilted against Russia as a naked aggressor. What drove Russia to such an action is not yet clear, nor is it clear whether the already overdone sanctions regime against Russia is going to work at all. There is such a thing as overdoing it, especially when Europe — not just Germany — is heavily dependent on the Russian gas supply.
The sum and substance are that if no military action is taken by the Western allies or NATO – and it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen – Russia has got what it wanted. For Moscow, it’s all apparently worth it, even a possibly long drawn out ‘internal’ operation. This is about the survival of Russia, therefore ‘costs’ are relative. China, with its even more seemingly inextricable position in the world economy, and even India, is obviously going to learn lessons. On Taiwan, its objectives have long since been clear and well spelt out. What China sees as vital for itself to justify a war, yet not so vital for the rest of the world that it takes up its guns, is unclear. Its ally in this part of the world is clear enough. That a ‘war’ could be almost entirely without troops is also a possibility. In such a case, India, for instance, will find itself with few ‘targets’ and therefore lesser options. It might be useful for India to start drawing its own red lines for all to see. Some may think it’s time for the unthinkable; which is to start joint operations in the Himalayas with ‘partners’. But keep in mind also the last lesson of Ukraine. Without ironclad guarantees and a strong self-interest, no one is likely to come to your aid. And finally, start thinking of an offensive yourself. A ‘Great Wall’ mentality never worked earlier, and it’s not going to work now.
The author is a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. She tweets @kartha_tara. Views are personal.
(Edited by Srinjoy Dey)