Opinion Despite recent peace moves, Ukraine situation is uncertain

The Indian advisory comes at a time when tensions appear to be easing somewhat, following US President Joe Biden’s call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12. The torrential flow of (good) news since then signals a shared interest to pull back from the precipice as if protagonists peered into the abyss below and didn’t like what they saw. Putin has decided to take up certain proposals Biden made to him, although they “did not really address the central, key elements” of Russia’s security guarantee. In essence, the Kremlin is responding positively to the White House offer to keep the dialogue track running. Of course, Moscow is also interested in following up the US offer to discuss secondary issues such as measures to address the problems of land-based short- and intermediate-range missiles and proposals on a range of measures to reduce military risks, confidence-building measures and military transparency (which are actually almost entirely old Russian proposals that Washington had previously ignored).

At a Kremlin meeting on Monday, Foreign Minister Lavrov told Putin that “there is always a chance” to come to terms with the US on the core issues, and “our opportunities are far from exhausted… I think we should still continue to pursue and build on them at this point.” This breaking news evoked a rare positive utterance from the White House: “We (US) are actively working to reach a diplomatic solution, to de-escalate the crisis… The path for diplomacy remains available if Russia chooses to engage constructively… It remains unclear which path Russia will choose to take… Clearly, we would prefer the path of diplomacy.” Lavrov has since spoken to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the latter’s initiative. The Russian readout says: “On our part, it was stressed that it is necessary to continue joint work… (Lavrov) called for a pragmatic dialogue on the entire spectrum of issues raised by Russia, with a focus on the principle of indivisible security.”

Meanwhile, the Russian Defence Ministry also announced on Tuesday that the Russian troops that have completed their drills in Belarus will begin returning to their places of regular deployment. Similarly, the troops of Russia’s Southern Military District have begun returning to their permanent bases too after drills in Crimea.

This hints at a critical mass accruing at the diplomatic level. Indeed, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN that Putin is “willing to negotiate.” It is tempting to conjecture that the dark clouds are dissipating and the sun is struggling to break through. So, is the Indian travel advisory a case of delayed reflex action?

The answer is, the current situation is still fraught with grave uncertainties. The 50-minute press conference at the Kremlin Tuesday evening after a three-hour meeting between Putin and visiting German Chancellor Olaf Schulz clarified that the tensions in Russia’s relations with the West cannot dissipate easily as the two sides radically differ on the fundamental question of what constitutes security. Simply put, Washington insists on the primacy of absolute security that allows the right of individual states to choose ways of ensuring their own security and joining any military unions or alliances. On the contrary, Moscow invokes various post-Cold War European covenants on collective security, which enshrine the key principles of equal and indivisible security and uphold the liability of every country not to strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of other countries.

This contradiction cannot be wished away and it poses a conceptual hurdle to reaching common ground apropos of Moscow’s December proposals on security guarantees. Equally, perhaps, there is a criticality in the situation within Ukraine itself, which is hidden from view. The regime is shaky and is adrift, speaking in multiple voices, and the political climate remains combustible with the rising insecurity and growing tendencies of authoritarianism. Kyiv balks at attempts to force it to implement the Minsk agreements, especially its simplified version known as the Steinmeier Formula (named after the present German president) calling for elections to be held in the separatist-held region under OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) supervision and providing for a self-governing status for those territories. Russia complains that the West failed to put pressure on Kyiv to move in that direction.

Then there are the dark forces of neo-Nazi extreme nationalists with covert external support who wield big street power and are virulently anti-Russian. What form a backlash may take is the “X” factor. The worst-case scenario could be ethnic cleansing or genocide directed against ethnic Russians (which is already happening sporadically). Equally, the fascist forces may stage some incident against the self-proclaimed Donbass republics and force Russia to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe on its borders.

Moscow has kept ready the parliamentary approval for recognising the two breakaway Donbass republics just in case a need arises. From the Russian perspective, the two most powerful warriors are patience and time, to borrow the words of Leo Tolstoy. Things are on a razor’s edge. India’s stance at the Quad ministerial last week in Canberra is commendable, as apparent from External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s reported hesitancy to identify with the US hyperbole about “Russian aggression” and to the strong advocacy to insert a Russia template into its so-called Indo-Pacific strategy. According to Australian media, if the Quad joint statement failed to condemn Russia, it was solely on account of India’s rejection of it.

This column first appeared in the print edition on February 17, 2022 under the title ‘Ukraine on the brink’. The writer is a former diplomat who worked on the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan desk in the Ministry of External Affairs.