War of Nerves

One year after the outbreak of Russian-Ukrainian war, not only the European region has been destabilized but rupture in the supply chain of fuel and food tends to cause enormous hardships to people in different parts of the world. During its one year military engagement in Ukraine, Russia lost more than 15,000 military forces which are more than its physical losses in 10 year of its military intervention in Afghanistan during late 1970s and 1980s.

If Ukraine has been resilient in countering massive Russian attack on February 24, 2022, Russia has also not given it up to gain territorial edge in that country. Starting from Moscow’s occupation of Crimea, the part of Ukraine in 2014 and some areas in the Russian-populated eastern parts of that country, Russia decided to attack Ukraine in February last year when it was convinced that the regime of Volodymyr Zelenskyy was determined to deepen its nexus with the United States by joining NATO. The encirclement of Russia through its policy of containment is an age-old ambition of the West starting from the Crimean war of 1856 and reaching its peak during the Russia-Japan war. Furthermore, the formation of NATO on April 4, 1949 was aimed to contain the then USSR and salvage Europe from the emerging Communist threat.

Ukraine was termed as a ‘bread basket’ of former USSR and its independence from Moscow was irreconcilable for Russia. The Russian President Vladimir Putin shares the grief of his countrymen that it was Ukraine from where the state of Russia originated in 10th century till the time it was occupied by the Mongols in 13th century. For Russia it is unpardonable that how can Ukraine take an anti-Moscow stance particularly when the very state of Russia was established over there more than one thousand years ago.

The encirclement of Russia by NATO would have got an impetus had Ukraine joined the NATO and Moscow wanted to pre-empt that eventuality by launching an attack against that country. However, Russia miscalculated the manner in which Ukraine resisted foreign invasion which led to massive material and physical losses of Moscow. Resilience and war of nerves also took the toll of Ukraine in the form of millions of people displaced, cities destroyed and infrastructure losses of over 50 billion dollars. Accusations of human rights violations by the invading Russian forces against Ukrainian people compelled the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take notice and launch a trial of Russian generals alleged to have been involved in massacres.

The abject failure of diplomacy and peace efforts led to the augmentation of human miseries and plight of the people of Ukraine. In the cover story entitled “What Victory Looks Like” of The Economist (London) issue of February 25, 2023 stated: “whatever happens, Ukraine’s need for weapons will endure for at least a decade and possibly longer. Just now it is firing roughly as many shells in a month as America can produce in a year. Its spring campaign needs munitions, spare parts, air defence systems, long-range artillery and, ultimately aircraft.” So far NATO including the United States has provided billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine to counter the Russian military invasion but asymmetrical nature of war reflecting Moscow’s land, air and sea superiority is still unmatched. Mobilization of resources from Western allies of Ukraine in the form of sophisticated weapons; providing humanitarian assistance for Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Czech Republic, Germany and elsewhere tends to provide some relief to Kyiv. Even Japan, which is not a member of NATO but an American allay, has announced to provide 5.5 billion dollars of humanitarian and economic assistance to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian president has warned that his country is a frontline state because if Russia succeeds in taking control of Kyiv, its capital in that case, it will have a direct access to other NATO members of Eastern Europe and democracy will be threatened. Whereas, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has also expressed resilience by sustaining military engagements against Ukraine despite heavy physical, military losses and sanctions imposed by the West. Condemning Russian attack over Ukraine in the UN General Assembly has not weakened the nerves of President Putin and he is determined to sustain military pressure over its weak and beleaguered neighbour.

Reflecting the concerns in the West if war in Ukraine continues for long and if Russia wins the war, The Economist (London) argues that, “as the war enters its second year, some ask whether Ukraine is worth all this effort. Imagine if the money spent on weapons could finance development instead. It is right to regret the war, but unwise simply to wish away Mr. Putin’s aggression. A Russian victory in Ukraine would march the world down a bleak path where might is right and frontiers are drawn by violence. It may hasten the next, even worse, confrontation in Europe. And it would deepen a widespread sense that Western power, and the universal values it sustains, are in steep decline. Ukraine’s victory, by contrast, would bring hope that a sovereign democracy need not bow to its much larger, dictatorial neighbour. It would be a world that took heart from the resolve and courage of Mr. Zelensky and the Ukrainian people.”

Sustained war in Ukraine, which is a failure of diplomacy, needs to be analysed from two angles. First, at stake is the political and territorial ambition of the Russian President Vladimir Putin and second is the credibility of NATO which is at stake. How Russia, which took the risk of occupying first Crimea and then attacking Ukraine is unwilling to relegate or accept the demand of Kyiv to withdraw its forces and pay compensation for billions of dollars of losses. In an article, “The meaning of war” in February 25, 2023 issue of The Economist (London) states: “Mr. Putin planned a lightning strike to topple the government, the culmination of a campaign of aggression and destabilization that began in Crimea and the Donbas region in 2014. Russia meanwhile has been reorganized around the war and Mr. Putin’s broader hostility towards NATO, even as sanctions and an exodus of its best-educated citizens have sapped its long-term economic prospects.” On the future of Ukraine the article holds that, “Ukraine’s future still hangs in the balance and is likely to remain uncertain for years to come. Mr. Putin may accept a ceasefire at some point of expedience, but his overhaul of Russian society is geared entirely towards aggression abroad and repression at home.”

If the future of Ukraine hangs in the balance, much depends on the fate of President Putin and the resilience of Ukraine along with its allies to defeat Moscow’s territorial ambitions. From the Western point of view, as long as Putin is at the helm of affairs there is little likelihood of Moscow withdrawing its forces from Ukraine because his ultimate objective is to force Kyiv accept Russian demands, namely not to join NATO and accept the independence of parts of Eastern Ukraine where a referendum was arranged declaring these as part of Russia. On the other hand, the West is unwilling to accept territorial status quo and wants complete withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine. More than that Kyiv wants that Crimea which was occupied by Russia in 2014 must be returned and Moscow should pay compensation for material losses as a result of infrastructure destruction caused during the war commencing from February 2022.

Ukraine along with its Western allies also wants that Russian generals should face trial for alleged genocide in Ukraine and for that matter International Criminal Court should form a tribunal for war crimes allegedly committed by Russian forces. Muted voices raised in the West against billions of dollars of military supplies to Ukraine and food, fuel crisis taking place as a result of war are unable to have any significant impact on pro-Kyiv stance. Furthermore, on the occasion of debate on Ukraine in the UN, China presented a 12-point peace plan to end war in that volatile country. While Russia gave a positive response to Chinese peace plan, the West and Ukraine rejected its contents. The Chinese peace plan calls for the following:

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries.
2. Abandoning the cold war mentality.
3. Ceasing hostilities.
4. Resuming peace talks.
5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis.
6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs).
7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe.
8. Reducing strategic risks.
9. Facilitating grain exports.
10. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable.
11. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction.

These points enshrined in the Chinese peace plan for Ukraine can play a significant role in diffusing armed conflict in Ukraine and pave the way for a meaningful dialogue for ceasefire and management of Russian-Ukrainian conflict. But, the United States suspects that behind the Chinese peace plan is Beijing’s ambition to attack and occupy Taiwan. In that case, the Chinese leadership is blaming the U.S and its allies under QUAD (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) to encircle and contain China. Henceforth, the war in Ukraine has consolidated Sino-Russian nexus.

Munich Security Conference held the other day also focused on war in Ukraine and used that platform to condemn Russia of its invasion. Yet, the war of nerves and resilience on the part of Ukraine and Russia will further jeopardize peace in Europe and destabilize global order. Only through diplomacy, political will and determination expressed by both Ukraine and Russia can pull the region from the web of crisis and armed conflict.