Three potential peace-making plans in the works

Manoj Joshi
Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

THE first anniversary of the Russian war on Ukraine is a good opportunity to do a bit of crystal-gazing. Given the current scenario where both sides seem determined to fight till victory, the future remains clouded.

Victory for the Russians could now well be a consolidation of the areas they have annexed through the September 2022 referendum in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. As for Ukraine, it says that the liberation of all those areas as well as Crimea is the victory they are seeking.

In the meantime, the conflict is increasingly looking like a proxy war between the US and Russia. This has been underscored by US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Kyiv. And now, amidst US warnings against aiding the Russian war effort, Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to visit Moscow in April.

The fighting grinds on. Neither side appears to have the wherewithal to compel the other side to concede. Despite their vast size and resources, the Russians have made trivial gains in their most recent offensives in the Donbas region. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are absorbing the attacks and waiting to launch their own offensive towards Mariupol.

The huge gap in the goals of the two antagonists makes any kind of a compromise difficult.

One solution is an outright and immediate ceasefire that freezes the conflict where it is. Probably, that is the point that both are aiming for this summer through their fresh offensives.

Each side may have to accept a tattered victory — Ukraine demonstrating its ability to take on the Russians, the latter indicating their determination to hold on to territories seized from Ukraine.

The larger picture also remains fuzzy. If Europe has managed to deal with its energy challenge through the winter of 2022, Russia, too has successfully used its oil and gas profits to ride out the difficulties its economy faced after the invasion and the western sanctions.

But income from energy, which provides 40 per cent of the Russian government’s income, is falling and could drop 25 per cent in the coming year as western sanctions sharpen their bite.

Meanwhile, the global community is at last getting worried that a prolongation of the conflict has dangerous, unpredictable consequences. Already, the world has had to pay an unanticipated price for what was thought to be a purely European affair.

The past year has seen significant geopolitical developments with implications not just for Russia but also its key friend China. The consolidation of the western alliance has derailed Chinese calculations in Europe. For Beijing, as for Moscow, relations with countries like Germany and those in central and eastern Europe are important from the economic and political perspectives.

Now, they support the US hard line on Russia, and China’s ‘no-limits’ partnership is not playing well in Europe. Even Japan has been forced to take major steps to re-arm and alter its pacifist policy and has made it clear that it will not accept the Chinese use of force in Taiwan.

There are three potential peace-making plans in the works:

China’s self-serving 12-point peace plan revealed at the Munich Security Conference was aimed at the European opinion, yet it undermined itself by Chinese diplomats blaming the war on western support to Ukraine. Beijing’s next moves could be revealed when Xi visits Russia later this year. So far, the response to the 12-point plan has been underwhelming.

The second potential peacemaker is India. New Delhi has been hoping to use the G20 presidency to find a leadership role in global affairs. India has been carefully feeling its way ahead and has maintained a neutral stance till now, one that is reluctantly accepted by the US and the EU.

However, India’s most recent vote of abstention at the UN General Assembly meeting on February 24 was a bit of a non sequitur. In its long-winded explanation of vote, it expressed concern over the loss of lives and destruction that the war had brought and spoke of the importance of international law and territorial integrity of states. It also invoked the Prime Minister’s statement that “today’s era is not an era of war.”

Yet, it abstained on a resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” that passed 141 to seven against with 32 abstentions.

The G20 is unlikely to provide a platform for any putative Indian move on Ukraine. The Chinese insistence on keeping the word ‘war’ out of the joint communiqué of the G20 finance ministers last week suggests that Beijing will work to ensure that India does not cut into the diplomatic space it is possibly seeking to create for itself on Ukraine.

A third and potentially important route to dialogue has been opened up by the reported move of France, the UK and Germany to offer Ukraine a pact that would supply advanced weapons and assistance to Ukraine, but not the full benefits of a NATO membership. The idea is to enable a Ukrainian offensive as a prelude to negotiations which may involve a loss of some Ukrainian territory. The European move would also be a guarantee of sorts for the future security of Ukraine.

There is no report of the US signing on to the European plan. In Kyiv, Biden offered unconditional support without any talk of negotiations. But it is unlikely that the Europeans will move without American concurrence.

Of all the moves, this may be the most fruitful since the Europeans are crucial to Ukraine’s fight against Russia and minus their support, the Ukrainians will find the going difficult. As they say, he who pays the piper calls the tune.