Grand Strategy: Time for Indian mediation in the Ukraine war
The argument that India must wait until it becomes more powerful to mediate in global conflicts, such as the Ukraine-Russia war, is misguided.
The external affairs ministry (MEA) stated last year, prior to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kyiv in August, that “India is willing to provide all possible support and contributions required to help find peaceful solutions to this complex issue.” The time may have come for New Delhi to do precisely that – to facilitate an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
New Delhi’s choice not to condemn Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, its efforts to balance interests between Russia and the West, and its cautious approach in picking sides since the invasion have all yielded positive outcomes. Today, New Delhi can be satisfied in its strategic decisions—both those it made and those it didn’t make. But that was season one of the show.
In season two of the great power politics on the world stage, in which US President Donald Trump is the lead character, New Delhi can ill afford to remain uninvolved. The ongoing negotiations in Riyadh to end the Ukraine war likely present a crucial opportunity for New Delhi to make its entrance especially considering that the Riyadh conversations are viewed as half-baked as many. And the way to do this is for India to propose its mediation (and venue) to facilitate ceasefire discussions between Russia and Ukraine, with American participation.
Three reasons why India must mediate now
There are three primary reasons why India should consider mediating in the Ukraine-Russia war at this point. First, the timing. While Russia may be making gains in the war, it is eager to end the sanctions and engage in great power conversations with the US, a process that has just begun in Riyadh. While Trump might eventually lift American sanctions, there is still no guarantee that the Europeans will follow suit, and for Russia to be integrated into the European security architecture, Europeans must play ball too. The ongoing conversations in Riyadh have not included Ukraine so far.
The growing partnership between India and Europe amid the growing rift between Europe and the US provides India with an opportunity to engage in some consultations with all sides: Russia, Europe, USA, and Ukraine. If indeed New Delhi organises a consultative meeting, most of these actors might be willing to join: Ukraine wants to be spoken with, Europeans want to be at the table, and Russia wants a trusted partner to help facilitate its integration into the global order. A Trump-led US may be a holdout, or perhaps not, as all parties involved recognise the need for an orderly end to the war, acknowledging that the war is indeed nearing the end.
Second, Delhi has acceptability in most of these capitals. India is perhaps one of the very few major countries that may be acceptable to most of the protagonists in the Russia-Ukraine war. China may face scepticism from the US deep state; even the Russians will think twice about Chinese intentions for, after, all it is Russia that China will eventually replace in the G2 table with the US.
Third, mediating or facilitating mediation in the war also helps India’s own national interests: For a country aspiring to be a global power and a pole in a multipolar world, it is an important door opener to several world capitals. More so, in the Trumpian world, either you are at the table or you don’t count.
Finally, if indeed there is a ceasefire, Ukraine is likely to insist on guarantees against potential Russian aggression in the future. If it comes to deploying peacekeepers on the border between Russia and Ukraine, Indian peacekeepers are a natural choice for both sides considering their experience and neutrality. Should India merely aim to be part of the solution by acting as keepers of a peace deal negotiated by other countries? We can do better than that—India should negotiate peace and then play an active role in maintaining it.
What is holding India back?
Three reasons stand out. What dominates Indian view is the fear of failure – what if our efforts don’t lead anywhere? However, the unlikely success shouldn’t dissuade us considering that most peace negotiations don’t succeed in what they set out to do. The rationale behind third party mediation is not only a positive outcome for the belligerents (i.e., conflict resolution) but also geopolitical gains, status and influence for the mediator.
More so, third party facilitation or mediation is not about ending the conflict (which is for the parties to the conflict to do) but to provide the good offices to do so, and sometimes convey those messages. Sometimes the adversaries are looking for precisely such opportunities to sit down and talk.
In terms of practical steps, India should appoint a special envoy to discreetly consult the various parties to the conflict, understand their demands, pressure points and redlines, and offer a venue in India for them for a series of negotiations.
The argument that India must wait until it becomes more powerful to mediate in global conflicts, such as the Ukraine-Russia war, is misguided. Compare India to some of the other mediators in the Russia-Ukraine war: India’s GDP is 3.5 times larger than Turkey’s; 3.6 times larger than that of Saudi Arabia; and, 17.7 times larger than Qatar’s. It’s a function of political will and opportunity, not GDP.
For a country whose conflicts and wars have been mediated by third parties time and again, for good or bad, in our interest or not, the time has come for India to mediate in others’ wars.
Happymon Jacob teaches India’s foreign policy at JNU and is the founder of the Council for Strategic and Defence Research. The views expressed are personal.
