OVERVIEW
'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is a tagline that you're bound to come across at least once in the past few days, be it in a newspaper or on a news channel. And if you aren't one to follow the news, you might have come across this topic on some social media post, wherein half the users in the comments section are totally clueless about what they're talking about. Yet, they don't hesitate to share their unsolicited opinion or advice, driven by ignorance, lack of knowledge, and the desperate urge to sound intelligent.
The term 'invasion' itself has a very negative aura associated with it. And rightfully so, as this very word is responsible for a disastrous cycle of events in history, including the world wars. Any country invading another in the 21st century is alarming enough to not just raise a few eyebrows but also generate cohesive retaliation on a global level. But is 'invasion' really the right term to use in this case? Russia doesn't really want the Ukrainian land for itself, but the fulfillment of certain demands for which Ukraine is reluctant, under Western influence.
There's a lot to understand before you derive your own conclusion and proceed to make a judgment. It is important to understand why Vladimir Putin resorted to such a drastic, unpredictable, and vicious move. Waging a war on another country is no joke, especially if one takes into account the heavy repercussions that the aggressor nation would be subjected to. But to understand the entire scenario in a nutshell, we need to dig back into some very basic history.
CAUSE OF DISPUTE
Before the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, it consisted of 15 countries that have now split up. Ukraine and Russia were one of those. After the Second World War ended in 1947, two countries emerged as potential superpowers, The United States of America and The Soviet Union. Competition for supremacy between the two nations led to a period that we now remember as the Cold War. Although not at a direct war with each other, the pursuit of greatness between these two rivals was evident in an array of fields, ranging from military modernization to space exploration. And in order to assert dominance on a global level, it was necessary to form alliances. The US took the first step by having the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) treaty take place, which at the time comprised of 12 member countries. One notable aspect of this particular treaty was its 5th article, which believed that 'an attack on one was an attack on all.' The USSR countered with the WARSAW pact not long after, although with its dissolution the pact too no longer stood valid.The West had supposedly claimed that it would stop with the Eastward expansion of NATO, especially involving former Soviet Nations. This promise however was violated, when three nations who were a part of the Soviet Union (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) were recruited in NATO alongside former members of the WARSAW pact. The next big threat for Russia was Ukraine falling under the clutches of NATO because that happening would allow American weaponry and missiles to be stationed in Ukraine. Since Russia shares a direct border with Ukraine, it was certain to pose a threat to Russian security. Vladimir Putin had once even jokingly said that Russia too could be a part of NATO, given their rapid expansion towards the east. Under these circumstances, Putin put forward the clause that Ukraine should never be a part of NATO. Something that the West wasn't ready to settle on.
NORD STREAM II GAS PIPELINE
Another crucial factor to consider is the dependence of other European countries on Russia for Natural gas. Almost 1/3rd of it comes from the latter nation, and its transportation takes place through pipelines. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline which extends up to Germany, is of great significance to Russia. Given that it has to pass through Ukraine, Russia is concerned about it being blocked and used as leverage by them, under the influence of NATO countries. However, the pipeline itself has not been in use just yet, and its development has been halted by Germany after the declaration of war. In an attempt to better the sour relations, Vladimir Putin tried to bring up the cultural similarities between the two countries, although Ukraine shrugged it off as an emotional statement fueled by political motives.RUSSIAN RETALIATION
The European Union is a formation of 27 member countries that are a part of the European continent, as the name hints. The then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukyovich, backed out from signing the political association and free trade agreement with the EU at the last minute, given the tendency of the EU to lean towards the West. Signing the agreement could've also been perceived by Russia as the first step towards Ukraine joining The EU. This move of his, however, spawned protests all over the country, forcing police and military interference. Baffled by this response, Yanukyovich fled the scene. The protesting population was split into two halves, with Russian ethnics in Ukraine largely favoring Russia. These protesters of Russian ethnicity elected a new Prime Minister in Crimea, a region to the south of Ukraine. Following a referendum held to decide the fate of Crimea, roughly 97% of voters supported the idea of it being a part of Russia. This prompted Russia to take over Crimea in 2014, inviting sanctions upon itself. The G8 summit was reduced to G7, with Russia being excluded following the annexation. Despite not attaining any international validation, Russia is bent on propagating Crimea as a piece of its own land even today. Not long after, a pro-Western government was reformed in Ukraine. These entire turn of events could be debated as the success of an extended covert CIA operation.
So is Russia right in its approach, or does Ukraine have every reason to not oblige to their demands? That is one decision left solely up to your choice, depending on where Russia's actions lie on your moral scale. But what is to note is that morality is subjective, and international relations are driven by personal interests and not moral values. It is a truth that's hard to digest but must be remembered and practiced. And India has chosen to abide by these very principles when tested in these tough times.
INDIA'S NEUTRAL STANCE
India's stance so far on this situation has been neutral. Out of the 3 countries who abstained from reprimanding Russia, was India. With China and UAE being the other two. India and China being on the same page is a once in a blue moon occurrence. And this neutral take of India`s has been criticized heavily by some. By choosing to abstain, India has in a way sided with Russia (since not objecting to the aggressor is the equivalent of favoring it). Yes, it is true that innocent people's lives are in danger. It's also true that some of the Indian students have been trapped amidst these unfortunate turn of events, with their evacuation still in progress. But are those factors just enough to drive India to side with Ukraine and oppose the invading country?
It's fair to say that the war with Ukraine is a personal dispute between both nations, just like the situation in Kashmir. We don't have to pick sides, for the entire world chose to remain silent when China was conducting mishaps in the Galwan Valley. The West expecting India to side with Ukraine is a shameless display of hypocrisy. But given Russia's deepened bond with China, it is essential for India to maintain a fair balance between both superpowers (yes, I consider Russia as one) as Russia is practically useless when it comes to countering Chinese aggression. That's where we need to be careful about not upsetting the United States and other European elites.
In order to understand better India's approach, we once again need to dive back deeper into the historic encounters that our country has had with both these nations who are presently at war.
INDO~RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP
For the first half of the Cold War, India was a part of the Non-Alignment Movement and refrained from siding with either of the superpowers. This however changed in August of 1971, when the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was signed. This very treaty proved to be a saving grace in the 1971 war with Pakistan, as when America had sent their 7th fleet along with Britain's HMS Eagle in the Bay of Bengal to strike Indian cities, they were intercepted by the USSR's 40th fleet which comprised of frigates, destroyers, and even nuclear-powered submarines. This act, or rather favor, is remembered fondly even today, as without Soviet intervention India was sure to lose the war and sustain heavy casualties. Following this incident, India and USSR developed strong strategic, military and cultural ties. Even after the Soviet Union broke down, India retained its friendly ties with Russia (which might've dwindled a bit in the last few years, given Russia's strong alliance with China that drove India towards America).
At present, 68 to 85% of our military equipment is of Russian origin, and Russia continues to be the largest exporter of arms and ammunition to India. In such a scenario, India cannot afford to upset Russia and lose out on its major defense partner. INS Vikramaditya, India's only aircraft carrier which is soon to be out of commission, was borrowed from Russia on a lease. The fastest supersonic cruise missile in the world, the BrahMos missile, is a joint innovation by Russian and Indian defense masterminds. Russian aircraft manufacturers like Sukhoi and MiG have traded fighter jets that operate at the forefront of the Indian Air Force. Be it INS Chakra, India's first nuclear-powered submarine, the S-400 surface-to-air missile system, or even the AK 203 assault rifles, the contribution of Russia to Indian armament cannot be ignored. And this is just a brief outlook on our dependence, for most of our equipment ranging in magnitude from basic to highly advanced comes from Russia, and more such deals are underway in the future. Apart from defense, India is dependent on Russia in other trade sectors too, with crude oil, coal, and petroleum products being at the top of their import chain. INDO~UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP
Unbeknownst to many, Indian history with Ukraine has been on the bitter end. It could be argued that it was India's close ties with Russia that got us in Ukraine's bad books. But that doesn't excuse the fact that when India went against repeated warnings from America and conducted the Pokhran II nuclear tests, Ukraine condemned us whereas Russia did not. When the decades-long wait was over and India rectified one of its biggest mistakes by lifting Article 370 off Kashmir, Ukraine stood against us and also did it support UN interference in the Indian territory of Kashmir. As opposed to this, Russia turned down the suggestion of conducting a referendum in Kashmir and letting the 'locals' decide the outcome. Not only that, but also has Ukraine established military partnerships with Pakistan, selling to them T-80 tanks worth 650 million. It is also being suspected that Ukraine has deliberately delayed the evacuation of Indian students, holding them hostage in attempts to shift India's neutral stance. Although part of the blame should fall on the students themselves, for taking prior warnings for granted.
AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT
This entire war could be termed as US propaganda. If it wasn't for false assurances of security to Ukraine, and the rapid eastward expansion of NATO in order to surround Russia and risk its security as a state, the war wouldn't have gone underway in the first place. Ukraine made the textbook mistake of being too reliant on The United States, and history's a witness to America being nothing short of a traitor, who'd shower you with false promises yet turn its back on you in the most crucial times. The most USA could do and has done is impose sanctions on Russia, but of what help are they to Ukraine? Vladimir Putin knew well in advance of the consequences before declaring war. Matter of fact is, sanctions are bound to hurt other European countries more than the Russians themselves, given their reliance on Russia. And if sanctions do intensify to the point where Russia's economy lands in a critical state, it's again The United States who is to benefit, as their competition would be momentarily paralyzed.
Neither NATO nor The States has come to Ukraine's rescue, despite hyping up civilian casualties in the region. The best way to control or rather eliminate these civilian casualties under these circumstances, is de-escalation from Ukraine's end, as Russia is stubborn on its demands being fulfilled. But instead, Ukrainian civilians with no military background are being armed to fight the Russians. This in a way contradicts the efforts to minimize civilian casualties and is a cheap move to garner sympathy for Ukraine and tarnish the already damaged Russian reputation. There is no denying the fact that Ukraine's Armed Forces are under-equipped to tackle Russian aggression, but the West views this as a perfect money-making opportunity for its defense market and therefore is adding more fuel to the fire by not acknowledging Russia's security concerns.
The situation is not much different from the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles aimed at The United States, in retaliation to American Missiles being stationed in Italy and Turkey. Both nations had to eventually withdraw the deployment of their respective weapons in each of their neighboring countries, as an assurance of safety. If Ukraine was to become a member of NATO, such a thing is bound to happen. Maybe, the 'evil tyrant' Putin can see through the growing threat possessed by the West, and the attack is just a countermeasure towards possible hardships that could await the land of Russia in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Further escalation and prolonged delay in ceasefire could give China the perfect opportunity to strike Taiwan, in which case India would be left completely powerless. It could also lead to inflation within the country, as sanctions on Russia would lead to a hike in petrol prices and affect the common man's life. Not to mention, most of the sunflower oil that goes into enhancing Indian cuisine comes from Ukraine. As Indians, if China was to station ballistic missiles in Nepal or Sri Lanka, you'd bet that we wouldn't just be okay with it. Because such a move by the enemy poses a serious danger to the security of a nation, and in moments like these it is very easy to mistake the aggressor country's intention. Or for that matter, identify which country is actually the aggressor.
To sum it up in a nutshell, what most people read in the headlines is just the outermost surface of a much deeper cubical. There's a lot happening behind the scenes, and this entire situation is not just limited to Ukraine and Russia. As quoted by a wise entity, there are no winners in a war, only losers. As long as there are humans, there will be a race for supremacy. And as long as there is a race for supremacy, there will be bloodshed, deceit, greed, and treachery. It is important that as an emerging superpower, India chooses its allies accordingly and acts smartly. International relations are fueled by personal motives and not moral values. And it's very, very difficult to determine someone's morality based on what's available on the table for you to see. With an Indian student losing his life in the war, we'd best hope that the situation eases up as soon as possible.
I don't claim to be Mr. Know It All, but I hope that the little information that I've managed to accumulate from relevant sources, acts as an eye-opener to all my fellow countrymen, who are too quick to jump to a conclusion by reading one headline.
- By a true patriot and a Soviet enthusiast.
Source(s):
Study IQ Education
Khan GS Research Center
Republic TV
Comments
Post a Comment