A blunderbuss in Ukraine

United States President Joe Biden’s phone call to Narendra Modi commending him for his trip to Kyiv gave the game away. After the preliminary 'huglomacy' for the cameras and their tête-à-tête, the Indian prime minister had to stomach some plainspeak from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Modi’s Kyiv visit was seen as an attempt to make nice with the US, which wasn’t amused by the optics of his July trip to Moscow to see Russian President Vladimir Putin at the same time that the US was hosting a major NATO summit. A man of straw, the former RSS pracharak gave in, only to face undiplomatic music from comedian-turned-politician Zelenskyy.

In an interview with Karan Thapar three weeks ago, former foreign secretary Krishnan Srinivasan said: “I’d be disappointed if the prime minister does go to Ukraine… It would be very difficult to avoid the impression that we are buckling under some kind of Western pressure. It will not be good for India’s foreign policy or national interest in the long term.”

In the few months that Biden is in office, the US administration may continue to encourage Modi to broker a deal. But even our publicity-seeking PM may not bite the bait again. He will also not like to risk antagonising Russia, which is engaged in a critical counter-offensive against Ukraine.

Ukraine’s incursion into Russia in the Kursk area was somewhat unexpected. Dr David Blagden of Exeter University told the BBC: “If Kyiv holds Russian territory, it can bargain for the return of its own territory from a position of greater strength.” On the other hand, Putin will throw everything at his disposal, barring nuclear weapons, to repulse Ukrainian forces.

Moscow has already retaliated by advancing further into Ukraine in the Donbas region, and is preparing for an assault on Ukrainian troops in Kursk. The BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner described Ukraine’s move as its ‘riskiest’ in the conflict so far. "Battered daily by Russian drones, missiles and glide bombs, its exhausted frontline forces are falling slowly back in Donbas." Zelenskyy may even have crossed an American red line with his aggressive gambit.

Nonetheless, the Ukrainian president is planning to present a ‘victory plan’ to the US next month. Meanwhile, he is pleading with his Western allies for further assistance.

Quite on the contrary to the paeans Indian mainstream media likes to sing to Modi’s image on the world stage, he is in fact a lightweight. His sojourns abroad have been glaringly conspicuous for their staged photo-ops and interactions with a fawning, out-of-touch Indian diaspora — mainly for consumption back home. There is little substantive dialogue, and in the case of China and Pakistan, a complete avoidance of hard issues. Modi’s one-on-one meetings are, in fact, mostly effected through tedious translation and have limited scope.

As chief minister of Gujarat, he presided over an alleged pogrom in the state in 2002 and was, as a result, banned for a decade by the US (de jure) and the European Union (de facto) from entering their territories. He simply does not have the credentials of a peacemaker and is out of his depth on international affairs.

Unsurprisingly, he made the most banal statement in Kyiv: “Both sides will have to sit together to look for ways to come out of this crisis.” To compensate for his ill-timed public embrace of Putin, he hugged Zelenskyy. Modi does not realise that such superficiality cuts no ice overseas, particularly where the recipient is unconvinced of your bona fides. Also, putting one’s hand on another’s shoulder can be interpreted as being patronising.

Zelenskyy is no diplomat; he is abrasive. He thinks Ukraine is entitled to have all countries on its side. He bluntly told a press conference while Modi was still on Ukrainian soil, that he did not want India “balancing between us and Russia”. He criticised India for purchasing Russian oil, calling it hypocrisy. He said India could host the next peace summit on Ukraine–Russia hostilities, stingingly adding: “We cannot hold the peace summit in a country that has not yet joined the (previous Switzerland) summit communique.” India would be loath to offend Russia by becoming a signatory to a document ‘based on Ukraine’s Peace Formula’.

Given India’s heavy dependence on arms supplies from Russia—and lately also cheap crude—regular contact is necessary between the two countries at the level of their heads of government. Now more so because of rising Indian concerns about delays in delivery of Russian military hardware, in the face of persistent threats from China.

For two-and-a-half years, Russia has been at war with Ukraine and has consequently prioritised its resources to that effort at the expense of India’s defence needs.

It was ridiculous to highlight — as Modi’s spin doctors did — that he had secured the release of Indians forced to serve in Russia’s armed faceoffs with Ukraine. The Indian embassy in Moscow is entirely capable of handling such negotiations — and Modi, incidentally, did not fully succeed in his endeavour anyway.

Plain and simple, he went to Moscow in his eagerness to receive an award from the Russian government, after his authority and reputation had taken a tumble in India following the outcome of the general election, compelling him to form a coalition with other parties to remain in power, not to mention the rumblings of discontent about him in his own party.