War, and talk of peace in Europe

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement on readiness for peace talks with Ukraine, facilitated by Brazil, China and India comes in a specific context in the war that has continued for over two-and-half years with neither side in a position where it can comprehensively win. To be sure, there have been many previous attempts to end the war, but these failed due to the maximalist positions of the two warring nations. Kyiv wants a reversal to the 1991 border, which means Russia giving up gains made in Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, and Moscow wants Ukraine to cede the remainder of the latter two regions and end efforts to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

That the war has continued suggests that both sides see potential gains in the form of further acquisition or reclamation of territory. But there is also a likely realisation that total victory is impossible. Russia’s strength of military personnel and equipment hasn’t yielded expected outcomes, and Ukraine remains dependent on western military aid, which it can’t remain assured of indefinitely. Europe’s fatigue with the war and its preoccupation with unrest within many national borders are one reason. The other is Donald Trump’s threat to scale back support to NATO were he to become president after the November elections in the US, unless other members of the grouping start pulling their weight. And, while a Kamala Harris presidency will be a continuation of the Biden era support for Ukraine, it may also nudge parties towards a brokered peace at the earliest. Meanwhile, the West has ratcheted up its economic pressure on Russia, and Moscow, despite enlisting support from friendly nations to offset this, has felt the pain.

Against such a backdrop, it would be pragmatic of both countries to tether their hopes to a peace deal. They have ruled out a direct deal, and therefore are likely to eventually gravitate towards a mediated one. India, for its part, has assured that it is on “the side of peace”, and is willing to play a constructive role. Several factors align with such a role for Delhi. Putin’s insistence on the particular nations he trusts as key actors in any peace process is a hedge against the West that may be interested in peace but views him as a threat to global stability and its rules-based world order. Russia wasn’t invited to the last major multilateral summit to work out a peace formula, held in June in Switzerland, and India, citing the imperative for all stakeholders to be involved, refused to sign the communique that emerged. On the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signalled openness to India hosting negotiations, albeit with rhetoric about the latter needing to endorse the Swiss communique. That apart, India is also likely to be relatively more acceptable as an interlocutor to the West as against Xi Jinping’s China, which has promised a “no-limits” partnership with Russia.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to Moscow in July and Kyiv in August helped assess receptiveness to India playing a facilitator to a peace process. It is now up to both Moscow and Kyiv to revisit their absolutist positions that could jeopardise a brokered peace.