Dear reader, Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations, on February 24. Reports coming in on Sunday suggest that the Russian forces are in Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine. Through the week, Russia has been bombing Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, forcing thousands of people to flee or take refuge in bunkers, underground metro stations etc. Nearly two million people, mostly women, children and senior citizens, are estimated to have taken refuge in Poland, Romania and Moldova, countries that border Ukraine. People in these countries have put in the extra effort to accommodate the refugees. There have been reports of anti-war protests in Russian cities. Western powers have imposed sanctions on Russia and introduced a resolution against Moscow in the United Nations Security Council. Russia vetoed the resolution even as China and India abstained from the vote. This newspaper had said that Delhi’s response to the invasion would be guided by India’s national interest (‘Stay the course’, February 26). India needs both Russia and the West for different reasons. Its approach to the UNSC resolution was guided by pragmatism — as during the Soviet Union’s intervention in Hungary 1956 and in Czechoslovakia after the 1968 Prague Spring. The Indian Express editorials on Ukraine — ‘Flashpoint Ukraine’ (February 22), ‘Go no further’ (February 24), ‘De-escalate’ (February 25) and ‘Stay the course’ (February 26) — analysed the background of the crisis and spoke for respecting the territorial integrity and international borders of sovereign nations, in this case, Ukraine. It flagged Russia’s concerns and the sense of victimhood, similar to Germany after World War I, Moscow has nursed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But all the follies and the triumphalism of the West are no excuse for Vladimir Putin’s immoral war. The repercussions of his actions will be felt across the world, which is yet to stand on its feet after a devastating pandemic. D B Venkatesh Varma, India’s ambassador to Russia between 2018 and 2021, analysed the implications of Putin’s war on global power relations. In his article (‘The Putin pushback’, February 24), he recalled the factors that led to Moscow adopting an aggressive posture on its western borders. The “deafness” and “disdain” of western powers to Russia’s concerns, evident in the flawed NATO expansion, have pushed Putin to show muscle and regain the influence Moscow once had in its neighbourhood. The “hugely destabilising” action is driven by Moscow’s “willingness to pay the costs and suffer for core interests”. Varma has argued that “India has taken a well-considered and balanced position on the evolving crisis”. He wrote: “Russia has not covered itself in glory. But that is no reason to doubt the merits of our long-standing relations with it — just as we held our noses and deepened our relations with the US during its decade-long intervention in Iraq”. The lesson from the Ukraine episode is, according to Varma, “offering your land to external powers to threaten others will only invite unhappy endings”. Pratap Bhanu Mehta (‘The world at risk’, February 26) wrote about the moral imperative of opposing the war. He wrote: “But this is not a moment for feeling superior by harping on the hypocrisy of the West or revelling in schadenfraude. This would be nothing but an excuse to let Putin off the hook, a temptation both the Right that admires Putin, and a Left that is so singularly focussed on American evil that it won’t see anything else, are tempted to succumb to. One can believe that American foreign policy was misguided: Its invasion of Iraq and its possible mishandling of the politics of NATO expansion dented its credibility. But these criticisms detract from the most important fact at hand -- that Putin has decided to destroy a large independent country with sovereign rights.” President Putin, who has been in charge of Moscow for over two decades now, may claim his moment of nationalist glory and even inspire his followers to dream of restoring a Russian empire. The Soviet Union was a daring experiment at the time of its founding: It was envisaged as a Union of different nationalities that subscribed to socialism though it morphed into a totalitarian nation-state that refused autonomy and agency to nations that were a part of the communist fellowship. Putin ended the chaos of post-Gorbachev Russia and rebuilt its economy. Though elections are held regularly — which Putin sweeps with huge majorities, of course — its polity resembles Tsarist Russia more than any democratic nation. Putin’s adventure in Ukraine is likely to isolate Russia internationally. The sanctions will be punishing for ordinary Russians and Moscow may turn more dependent on China. Olha Vorozhbyt, a journalist from Ukraine, wrote a poignant essay (‘A letter from Ukraine’, February 26) on the tragedy that has befallen her country. She traced the history of Ukraine-Russia relations over the centuries and called out the imperialist instinct that drives Putin’s invasion. She wrote how the threat from Russia has, in fact, bound Ukrainians more than ever as a nation and strengthened their resolve to fight for their country. She wrote: “Since 2014, Ukraine has changed a lot. Even while living with war, it became more European, had more opportunities, a visa-free regime and deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU that gave more options to our entrepreneurs. Most importantly, Ukraine has been a democratic state. For the Kremlin, having a democratic neighbour while it targets opponents is not a preferable option. That is why Ukrainians are so eager to enter the EU and NATO. According to the last poll, 67 per cent of Ukrainians want to join the EU and 59.2 per cent, NATO. These numbers are a result of Russian aggression. In 2013, less than 20 per cent of Ukrainians wanted to enter NATO.” Putin’s immediate gain may turn out to be Russia’s loss in the long run. Moscow may have gained territory but it has lost the moral ground. Putin may also have pushed the world into another Cold War. KPAC Lalitha, one of Indian cinema’s finest actors, passed away on February 22 at the age of 73. Lalitha was a “character actress” during most of her five decades in Malayalam cinema. As Meena T Pillai wrote in her tribute (‘Kerala’s Common Woman’, February 25), “That she acted in a small regional film industry, away from the ‘hype’ around the glitz and glamour of Bollywood and its self-assigned aura of nationalist myth-making, was her only shortcoming as an actor.” Thank you, Amrith |
No comments:
Post a Comment