“Are you aware that #IstandwithRussia #IstandwithPutin are among the top tending hashtags in India?”
The observation above was written to me by a professional Indian journalist in the employ of a leading worldwide news provider. This insight has persuaded me to pay more attention to the Indian ‘market,’ which may yet play a decisive role in the denouement of the ongoing reshaping of global politics brought on by the Russia-Ukraine war.
Yesterday I was scheduled to appear in panel discussions of that war hosted by two of India’s best known news providers, Times Now and the India Today Group. I was unlucky on both. There were some technical problems at the former which arose while I was in the Zoom holding pattern. They could not be resolved and I was disconnected. And at the latter Group a most peculiar editorial decision was taken to scrub its discussion of the incident at the Ukrainian nuclear plant in Zaporozhye in favor of coverage of the death of cricket player and so all panelists were figuratively speaking sent home.
Nonetheless, I had prepared some remarks for both programs which I now will share with readers of this website. I will be brief and to the point.
In the months leading up to the Russian incursion in Ukraine, several of my peers had called attention to the Russian-Chinese rapprochement, which President Xi had publicly described as ‘higher than an alliance.’ These same peers argued that it was precisely the backing of the Chinese which gave Vladimir Putin the confidence to take on the United States and NATO in a direct challenge to U.S. global hegemony, with Ukraine as the chosen battlefield. Moreover, Putin’s visit to Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games provided an opportunity for last minute coordination by the two leaders of scenarios for cooperation in the coming showdown with NATO.
However, the Kremlin’s preparations for the coming war involved face to face talks with one other global leader about which much less was said in the world media: namely his visit weeks earlier to Delhi for talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. To be sure, Putin’s delegation to Delhi was numerous and highlighted the growing joint activities in the energy field and also in not only procurement but also production of military hardware. India, like Turkey, had acted in defiance of U.S. pressure over its military suppliers and was accepting delivery of the cutting edge S-400 air defense systems from Russia come what may from Washington.
I would stress that the visit to India was no less important to Moscow than the visit to Beijing. Whereas the United States has for the past five years been applying ever greater efforts to de-couple from China and to implement a variety of military, political and economic policies to “contain” the PRC, it has been at equally great pains to woo India away from its decades long friendship with Russia and to bring Delhi into active participation in the plans for ‘Indo-Pacific’ defense directed against the People’s Republic of China.
Now, when push came to shove in the United Nations General Assembly meeting a week ago on the motion to condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and to call for an end to hostilities, which at this moment would signify a Russian defeat, we note that the two countries, China and India, cast the very same vote: abstention. China did not exercise a veto in favor of its ‘friend.’ It abstained.
Of course, in such a vote, abstentions carry great meaning. They are given in the face of massive U.S. diplomatic efforts to bribe or blackmail a host of UN member states and ensure they vote as America dictates. In the end, the United States got what it wanted: an overwhelming number of member states supported the resolution. However, given the abstentions of India and China, as well as the abstentions or vetoes of other populous states including Iran, South Africa and Vietnam, one can say that states accounting for more than 4 billion people, or more than half of humanity, did not support the propagandistic resolution authored in Washington. This constitutes a moral victory for the Kremlin in a vote which, after all, carries no legal consequences.
World leaders and the mass media of the United States and allies have been hyperactive, nearly hysterical in their reporting on the progress of the Russian advance into Ukraine and in disseminating speculation on what the Kremlin’s end game will be. The loss of focus, the confusion underlying the hysteria arises due to a memory span that usually does not go back beyond two weeks and a power of forecasting that does not reach beyond one week. The media are, in effect, lost in time and they are drawing the broad public into the same fog.
Considering the progress now achieved by the Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine, given that their numbers are generally well below those of the Ukrainian military, militias and recently hired mercenaries deployed by Kiev; considering that the worst of the Ukrainian radical nationalists, a.k.a. terrorists are now surrounded in places of their concentration, as for example, Mariupol; considering that Ukraine’s commercial life will soon be cut as the Russian forces take full control of the Black Sea littoral, I believe the conflict will not go on for more than a week or two before Russia achieves its objective of Ukraine’s unqualified capitulation and the hostilities come to an end.
If so, Russia will have achieved in Ukraine what Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov said back in December when negotiating with the United States and NATO over Russia’s demand to revise the security architecture of Europe: “move or we will move you.” Russia will have exposed the ultimate uselessness of NATO to European defense and will mark a turning point in global power relations.
What will emerge from the changing power balance will be the formal end of U.S. global hegemony and of its monopolar moment. The world will become bipolar for the first time since the end of the Cold War: the US/EU on one side and RU/PRC on the other side.
The new bipolar world is a vast improvement on global U.S. hegemony over the past 30 years, which resulted in endless wars, in the death of millions of civilians and of whole national economies in places like Libya, Syria, Afghanistan in senseless and hopeless U.S. striving to remake the world in its image in keeping with the promises of the Neoconservative ideology set out very efficiently by Francis Fukuyama in The End of History in 1992. Far from being the defenders of the status quo, the United States used its moment of unfettered power to artificially accelerate the historic trends towards liberal democracy that it believed were destined to bring universal peace in some indefinite future.
The reinstatement of a bipolar world is a good in itself. You need not be a Manichaen to appreciate that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: it is better for there to be opposing forces nominally designated as Good and Evil than to have a sole power that declares itself to be the Good.
But the bipolar world is not good enough to protect the rights, liberties and well being of the world’s peoples, who may not well appreciate the compulsion to choose this side or that on every global issue. Moreover, it falls short of the multipolar world that has been so widely promised, in which the major economic and military powers of the world will have their proper seats and weighted voting rights at the world’s board of directors’ table. This is where India can yet play a determining role for our common welfare: by directing the emerging New World Order towards multipolarism.
In doing so, India would be reestablishing the preeminent position in global politics which it enjoyed way before it had the economic wherewithal and other power attributes that it possesses today. Along with Yugoslavia, it was for decades the leader of what was designated the Nonaligned Nations.
Let us hope that the Indian leadership appreciates the opportunity before the country to play a very constructive and necessary role in reordering not just the security architecture of Europe, but the forces that govern world politics.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022
17 thoughts on “India’s moment to shine”
You should put quotation marks around “liberal democracy”. The same applies to “the left” when writing about liberals. I know you know that republics are not democracy and liberals are not the left.
the numers are even more devastating:
141 countries voting in favor of the resolution represent 42% of the world population. The countries NOT voting for the resolution represent 58%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My apologies to Gilbert for underestimating the number in my comment to his last post. I reviewed the numbers and now get 53% vs 47%, but I cheated and just assumed everyone who didn’t vote against or abstain voted For. Obviously a few aren’t represented, a few just were not present and Venezuela can’t vote because it hasn’t paid its fees. Perhaps if US/UK block every countries’s access to their dollar or gold assets (and visas to UN in NY) they can win everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indians love their cricket, especially spin bowlers. Shane Warne is probably the best spin bowler ever. Muralitharan of Sri Lanka is the only bowler of any kind to have taken more wickets, but he bowled more and was the main strike bowler in a weak team. Warne played in a very strong team where the fast bowlers were expected to take a lot of wickets too. Just 52 and a well liked commentator too.
No shame in being dropped for Shane Warne in any sporting entertainment.
Michael, cricket is soft power. Ten years ago India might have been unwilling to go against the Anglo empire, partly because the Indian elite do not want to lose their sport.
The IPL has changed the dynamic. Now India is the fulcrum of the game. The BCCI funds many minor nations with the money it makes from the IPL. Former players make good money in various roles, and current players are desperate to land an IPL contract.
Compare that to what happened when the British were in their pomp. Two great fast bowlers; SF Barnes refused to play for them because the pay was so poor, and Tom Richardson committed suicide out of poverty and despair when he had to retire.
Well done India!
I also think that the former world until 1990 is wrongly considered “bipolar”. In any case, it was much less bipolar, than the world of the 1990s and 2000s was unipolar.
The reason for the latter:
The “victory” of the West was also and especially an ideological victory – and it was a victory of the Americans … also over the remnants of “old Europe” …
Dr.Gilbertdoctorow it is too bad that you couldn’t get on the Indian TV for the simple reason the host Abinov is not boorish and was somewhat neutral regarding the conflict some times even supporting the Russian point of view. Hope you will accept their invitation if and when it arrives. With so much propoganda sane and logical voices such as yours will help the Indian audiences to form a better view of the conflict. By the way he didn’t ask about 4000 Indian students blocked by Azov guys from leaving. This fact has to be stressed to educate Indians of the great Western democracies.Thanks
Good article, thanks.
It was a relief to see India abstain. At the beginning of 2020 when I saw the concerted Sinophobia being ramped up in Indian corporate and social media, I got the impression that the country was being warmed up for a a skirmish with China. Sure enough, the misadventures on the glacier happened followed by Indian warships sailing off to the South China Sea for no good reason. I don’t know about bipolar or multipolar or apolar but it’s a good idea if the bigger countries stay non aligned and stay out of military adventurism.
Perhaps you had a lucky escape with Times Now, otherwise you might have been memed like Daniel McAdams!
I’ve really appreciated your articles and the interviews you have posted since this incursion began. Really helpful and dependable information.
I don’t see that Russia “will have exposed the ultimate uselessness of NATO to European defense” because NATO is not directly involved in Ukraine. The US has feebly resorted to referring to “allies” of NATO but there’s no getting around the fact that Ukraine can’t invoke Article 5. Malicious, underhanded, pointless, dog-in-the-manger intervention, of COURSE.
Your statement is true if one has encountered for the first time recent analyses of the realities of what combat power the US now has in Germany compared to cold war times. The true correlation of forces has been known all along to professionals as the US pursued it’s asinine frolics ex Europe and the real deal NATO nations played the Potomac democracy lovers for the chumps (chimps?) they are and played social democrat Santa Claus to their idiot, immigration-loving populations on the US dime.
Behavioral science teaches that if the nations (don’t laugh) of Europe don’t ACT like there’s a threat from Darth Putin then they actually DON’T THINK there IS a threat. Consequently NATO existence is a joke. QED. Let Sam play his games.
Of course, NATO has published videos of how frightfully diverse and tolerant and downright inclusive it is so that IS a honking force multiplier that keeps Lavrov and that gorgeous FM spokeswoman awake at night. If not in stitches.
I should add that your statement IS correct with respect to Mr. Putin’s warning that Russia will instantly be at war with any nation that attempts — in a spasm of R2P or RBIO horsefeathers — to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. But that’s more of an ancillary twist of the knife. The essence of Russian action here is the invasion itself to which NATO is legally irrelevant.
Comments are closed.