Putin is a master tactician. Therefore, he will insist that Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine — which is, of course, also a statement of fact — given the growing pressure on Russia from Global South.
by M. K. Bhadrakumar
Russian President Vladimir Putin has outwitted the West by his response to Ukraine’s Kursk offensive one month ago, which was widely celebrated as a tipping point in the conflict. The conflict is indeed at a tipping point today, but for an entirely different reason insofar as Russian forces seized the folly of Ukraine’s deployment of its crack brigades and prized Western armour to Kursk Region to reach an unassailable position in the most recent weeks in the battlefields, which opens the door for multiple options going forward.
 |
| Russian President Vladimir Putin at the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum, Vladivostok, September 5, 2024 |
On the contrary, the West finds itself in a ‘Zugzwang’, a situation found in chess whereby it is under compulsion to move when it would rather prefer to pass.
Putin’s address to the plenary of the 9th Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on Thursday was eagerly awaited for what he had to say on the conflict in Ukraine. Several things stood out.
Putin no longer characterised the Ukrainian interlocutors as the ‘Kiev regime.’ Instead, he used the expression ‘Kiev government’. And he summed up: “Are we ready to negotiate with them? We have never given up on this.” Was he being a taunting poser, as the Kremlin leader who has tangoed with four American presidents already, expects a fifth with an “infectious” laugh, which makes him “happy.”
On a serious note, though, Putin took note that the “official authorities” in Kiev have regretted that if only they had followed up on the “signed official document” negotiated with Russian representatives at the Istanbul talks in March 2022 “rather than obeyed their masters from other countries, the war would have come to an end long ago.”
Putin implied that Kiev must regain its sovereignty. The conciliatory words were measured, possibly with an eye on the unravelling of political alignments within the ruling dispensation in Kiev. That is to say, Putin rejects Zelensky’s Ukrainian settlement process, but is willing to revive negotiations on terms first discussed at talks in Istanbul in March 2022 at the start of conflict.
Putin went on to discuss potential mediators. He singled out 3 BRICS member countries — China, Brazil, and India. Putin said Russia has “trusting relations” with these countries and he himself is in “constant contact” with his counterparts with a view “to help understand all the details of this complex process.”
Evidently, Putin is distressed that he is “constantly” being told by them about the human rights situation due to the conflict, Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s national sovereignty and so on. He regretted that they overlook the genesis of the conflict — the 2014 US-backed coup d’etat in Ukraine which was resisted by native speakers of Russian language, and over suppression of Russian culture and Russian traditions.
Fundamentally, Putin stressed, the West hoped to “bring Russia to its knees, dismember it… (and) they would achieve their strategic goals, which they had been striving for, maybe for centuries or decades.” In the given situation, therefore, Russia’s strong economy and military potential are its “main guarantee of security”. [Emphasis added.]
In such a scenario, what are the prospects going forward? Putin is sceptical about the West’s intentions. Yet, conceivably, he pampered the three mediator-countries who are also Russia’s key BRICS partners at the forthcoming Kazan summit next month (which is expected to focus on an alternative payment system for international trade.)
Moscow is wary that the BRICS partners are beating their luminous wings in the void without comprehending that the conflict in Ukraine is a civilisational war that has been going on for centuries since the Slavic peoples began developing their own Orthodox churches through more than half of Christian history.
Putin is a master tactician. Therefore, he will insist that Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine — which is, of course, also a statement of fact — given the growing pressure on Russia from Global South. But Putin does not harbour any hopes of Zelensky meeting the pre-requisites conducive to peace talks, which Putin had outlined at a meeting with the senior officials of Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14. If anything, new ground realities have since appeared.
This becomes clear from a TV interview Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave in Vladivostok after Putin’s speech. Lavrov drew the bottom line: “Vladimir Zelensky is not ready for honest talks. The West will not let him near them. They have set the goal, if not to dismember the Russian Federation (even though this was stated as a goal), then to at least radically weaken it and to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The West will not allow him to make steps towards us. Zelensky is no longer able to understand what meets the interests of the Ukrainian people, since he has repeatedly betrayed them.”
Zelensky himself is zigzagging. He took a hard line in remarks at the meeting of the so-called Ramstein Format hosted by the US on Friday that brought together generals and defence ministers from 50 countries to coordinate on arms supplies for Kiev. Zelensky lamented that prohibitions on firing long-range, Western-provided missiles and rockets into Russia persisted. He’s now taking his case to President Biden.
Zelensky’s attendance in person at the Ramstein event “highlighted the sensitivity of the moment in a new, more active phase of the war,” as the New York Times reported. The daily quoted a Ukrainian expert commenting that “The main task of Zelensky at Ramstein is to bring some adrenaline to the partners.”
Indeed, the situation surrounding Zelensky is unenviable — the sluggish delivery of Western weaponry; Germany’s wavering stance during a budget crisis even as the eastern regions comprising former GDR openly opposes the war against Russia; France, an ardent supporter of the war, is caught up in a political crisis and an early presidential election next year may produce an anti-war leadership in Élysée Palace; the post-November 5 trajectory of US policies on Ukraine remain uncertain.
Meanwhile, US-European differences have surfaced regarding Washington’s egotistic proposal that the EU give a $50 billion loan to Ukraine and ensure that Russia’s frozen assets remain frozen until Moscow pays post-war reparations to Ukraine. Washington estimates that this way, the US won’t be on the hook for repaying the loan if the Russian assets somehow are unblocked. (The rules governing existing EU sanctions, which need to be renewed every six months, allow a single country to unfreeze assets, which Washington believes jeopardises the loan.)
In Donbass, events vindicate Putin’s strategy that a crushing defeat on Ukrainian troops on the most crucial sectors of the front would inevitably lead to Zelensky’s entire armed forces losing combat capacity. In fact, signs of this happening are already there.
Putin said with quiet confidence that Zelensky “accomplished nothing” from the Kursk offensive. The Russian forces have stabilised the situation in Kursk and started pushing the enemy from border territories while the Donbass offensive is “making impressive territorial gains for a long time.” In retrospect, Zelensky’s Kursk offensive turned out to be a Himalayan blunder, which has taken the war to a tipping point favouring Russia.
In this context, the extraordinary first-ever joint piece by the spy chiefs of CIA and Mi6 which appeared in Saturday’s FT shows that beneath word play and hyperbole, the Anglo-American strategy is in a cul-de-sac. Bill Burns and Richard Moore cannot even bring themselves to articulate what Biden’s objectives are despite admitting that “staying the course is more vital than ever.”
Burns and Moore hinted that covert (terrorist) operations by Krylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, are the option left now in the proxy war. What a Shakespearean fall for a superpower!
M. K. Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat by profession. Roughly half of the 3 decades of his diplomatic career was devoted to assignments on the territories of the former Soviet Union and to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Other overseas postings included South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, and Turkey. He writes mainly on Indian foreign policy and the affairs of the Middle East, Eurasia, Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific.
Post a Comment