When Prime Minister Modi visited Moscow in early July, the dates coincided with the NATO summit in Washington. There were demands from the US asking India to postpone the visit, but these were ignored. US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti said India should not take its relations with the US for granted. Jake Sullivan, the American intelligence expert, said, “Counting on Russia as a long-term, reliable partner is not a good bet.” Soon after, there was a delay in the delivery of GE F404 engines, which affected India’s production of Tejas aircraft. This delay prompted Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal AP Singh to comment, “Atmanirbharta cannot come at the cost of national defence.”
The delay in the GE engines was blamed on supply chain issues, but anything is possible with the US, which has a history of turning its back on even allies when it wants to exert its influence. The Prime Minister’s visit to Poland and Kyiv last week was perhaps intended to counter the perception that India is on Russia’s side. In April this year, India became the largest consumer of Russian oil, overtaking China. The timing of Modi’s visit was also symbolic.
Ukraine celebrates its Independence Day on August 24 and the Prime Minister visited the country on August 23 to signal India’s support for Ukrainian sovereignty. Modi conveyed the actual reason for the visit in his tweet: “We will also exchange perspectives for a peaceful resolution of the ongoing Ukraine conflict.” Modi was expected not to speak negatively about Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit but would offer humanitarian assistance and improve trade relations while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would do the same. Possibly with an intention to signal neutrality, Modi mentioned in his address to the Indian diaspora in Warsaw that India is moving from maintaining equal distance (non-alignment) to building close relations with all camps (strategic autonomy).
The joint statement at the end of the Warsaw visit said that both countries had “reaffirmed the need for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in accordance with international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.” These words will bode well in the West. The visit to Poland was symbolic, but it was also important to establish a stronger foothold in Eastern Europe, as Poland remains the only safe gateway to Ukraine, accessible via a 10-hour train ride. Poland stood by India when it withdrew its students from Ukraine at the beginning of the conflict, and it was important to express gratitude to the Polish leadership. That Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to Washington coincided with the Prime Minister’s visit to Kyiv cannot be a coincidence.
Rajnath Singh stated before his visit, “We will discuss areas of strategic interest while trying to strengthen defense cooperation.” Several defense deals were signed during this visit, including one to offset supply chain disruptions. In all likelihood, stumbling blocks in the engine release have been overcome, and there will be progress on other defense deals as well. While the US and its allies continue to fund Ukraine, there is a realization that this cannot continue for much longer. Germany has already proposed cutting funding by 50 percent starting next year. Hungary objects to the current level, as do others. Donald Trump’s entry into the White House could significantly reduce US support, putting Ukraine in a difficult position.
Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk strengthens its bargaining power over territory and comes at a crucial time, affecting the chances of an immediate ceasefire. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, said immediately before Modi’s visit: “There will be no negotiations until the enemy is completely destroyed.” China has already begun to express its desire to act as a mediator between Ukraine and Russia. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Kyiv coincided with Chinese Prime Minister Li Qiang’s visit to Moscow. Beijing had recently invited the Ukrainian foreign minister to China. Dismayed by Modi’s visit and knowing that India would have more global influence as a mediator, China labelled the Indian initiative as “yoga diplomacy”.
Chinese mouthpiece Global Times mentioned, “New Delhi currently lacks the strength and influence to bridge the gap between Moscow and Kyiv as its influence in Europe is very limited.” For the US, mediation by Beijing is unacceptable. Prime Minister Modi may have brought a negotiating message with him, which he expressed during his one-on-one meeting with Zelensky. He would have discussed Moscow’s perceptions with Putin. Modi’s statement in Warsaw that “India is a strong supporter of lasting peace in this region. India’s stance is clear: this is not the era of war” is also no coincidence. There have been disagreements between Ukraine and India, particularly over oil procurement from Russia and rejection of the peace summit document, but this probably reflected the US view.
India is unlikely to offer mediation on its own unless both sides demand it, which is unlikely at present. Even if it were discussed, it would remain under wraps until something substantive comes out of it. New Delhi would have preferred to sit out the conflict as it has done in West Asia. India has never accepted mediation in its disputes and so may not offer one on its own. It is a balancing act that Prime Minister Modi has undertaken to ensure that India’s relations with all camps remain stable. Although Mr Modi has disappointed both Ukraine and the West by not criticising Putin so far, he is the only head of state to have visited Moscow and Kyiv.
While the media would publish the official version, the fact remains that a visit of this nature, especially in a war zone, is not possible without detailed preparation. The amount of preparation that would have preceded the visit, including discussions between foreign ministers and NSAs, would have yielded tangible results. The fact that no air raid sirens were heard throughout Mr Modi’s stay in Kyiv suggests that Russia did not want to disrupt the visit as it could be beneficial to them in the long run. It is also an indication of the relations that exist between Delhi and Moscow. (The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army.)
