While the Russia-Ukraine War has entered into more than two months causing hardship to the common people of Ukraine along with its serious implications for both global and regional politics of the post-Soviet Eurasia. However, the irony is that the war is showing no sign of ending soon. Like every other day, one notices surprises both in terms of geopolitical realignment like the support of the US and EU to Ukraine or Russia’s tactical advances which is generating a lot of hypothetical questions regarding the future course of the war between Moscow and Kyiv. Some of these questions are: Firstly, one needs to ponder whether the present impasse on the strategic front with Ukraine can be explained by the writings of Russian geopolitical analysts? The second question that requires a more in-depth analysis is how these analyses are going to impact the present war between Russia and Ukraine?
To know the genesis of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and the impasse in the Slavic world one has to look at the geopolitical writings of the Eurasianists like Alexander Dugin and others who gave a sharp geocultural twist to the entire discourses. It may be recalled here that these neo-Eurasianists as analysts are arguing following the footsteps of Lev Gumilev who is considered to be the fiercest Eurasianists and Trubetsky. In this regard, it may be underlined here these Eurasianists left Russia and took shelter in different parts of European countries after the October Revolution and tried to give a new basis to Russia’s geocultural identity in the framework of “Eurasianism”. Though this idea of “Eurasianism” was dormant during the Cold War period made its appearance in the political ideas of Vladimir Zhirinovsky considered to be an outspoken critic of the liberal policy being pursued by late Russian President Boris Yeltsin. One may underline here the bitterness between Russia and Ukraine one can witness in the initial years of the 1990s even though Russia shared a good relationship with the West under Yeltsin’s regime. As observed by Ukraine’s first President Leonid Kravchuk, “We want friendly relations with Russia…but Russia considers us to be its vassal and as its vassal, we are expected to submit and to agree” (as quoted in William H. Kincade’s and Natalie Melnyczuk’s ‘Eurasia Letter: Unneighborly Neighbors’, Foreign Policy, No. 94, 1994), pp. 84-104).
The above statement of Kravchuk vividly describes the state of relations between Russia and Ukraine in the post-1991 era although both the countries share common civilisational values rooted in Slavic identity. At the same time, what one notices in the cultural parlance in post-Soviet Russia is a growing shift to the Eurasian geocultural identity matrix and a rejection of the European cultural syndromes. Though at the policy-making level Russia initially pursued a somewhat sombre geopolitical doctrine of “shared identity with the West” as enunciated by a pro-West leaning Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev and equally supported by Boris Yeltsin. The enunciation of the Eurasian ideas along with its reflection in the foreign policy doctrine of Russia took an upper hand when Vladimir Putin assumed the leadership of the country. At the same time, on the ideological front also one can notice the growing resurgence of the idea of Eurasia as reflected in the work of Aleksandr Dugin, considered to be the forerunner of Eurasian ideology and a key aid of President Putin. The book of Dugin titled Foundation of Geopolitics provides the ideological underpinnings to Russia’s foreign policy rooted in “greatness of Russian culture”, “Raum” means “Spirit of the land” along with greatness of “Russia’s Orthodox Church” which propelled Russia to call itself as the home to “Third Rome” the “spiritual epicentre” of “Orthodox Christianity”.
Thus the geopolitical idea is rooted in “anti- Westernism” based on the rejection of the “Western value system” as reflected in the book Foundation of Geopolitics, published in 1997. Coming to the context of Ukraine’s geopolitical identity, Dugin, in his article ‘Ethnosociology of Ukraine in the context of the military operation’, highlights that “Ukrainian nationalism as an artificial construct”. In this context, he further emphasises that “Russia will not stop until it abolishes the model of the nation and the nation-state that the Ukrainian nationalists built with the support of the West”. The above idea of Dugin provides an ideological basis for Putin’s present geopolitical manoeuvrability against Ukraine. In fact, in some of his speeches and writings of Putin on the present Russia-Ukraine conflict or in the context of Russian foreign policy one can find the imprint of Dugin. As President Putin in one of his articles titled ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’ published on 15 July 2021 underlined the fact that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped—for a significant part —on the lands of historical Russia”. This article by President Putin gives enough hints at the future course of the present war between Moscow and Kyiv.
Another important Russian academic Fyodor A. Lukyanov, who serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Russian magazine Russia in Global Affairs and also the Professor of Institute of World Economy, as well as Moscow based World Economy and International Affairs University as well as the faculty at the influential Kremlin, think tank Valdai Club. Lukyanov gives a new geostrategic perspective on the Russia-Ukraine war in a global context by underlining in an article titled ‘Old Thinking for Our Country and the World’ published in Russia in Global Affairs. In the article, he underlines that the present Russia-Ukraine crisis can be traced back to the status quo tendencies in the existing world order dictated by the West. To quote Lukyanov, “Let us emphasise that the current crisis of the world order was not provoked by the special military operation in Ukraine. It was spawned long ago by the stubborn unwillingness of the liberal order leaders to give up the privileges they gained after the Cold War”. Thus Lukyanov’s article gives the structural perspective to the present war between Russia and Ukraine by blaming the western countries who consistently denied Russia the rightful place in the global geopolitics and assuaged Ukraine to achieve their strategic goals of containing Russia in the post-Soviet geopolitical space.
Sergei Karganov, who serves as the Dean of the Higher School of Economics, Moscow and also serves as the advisor to the Presidential Administration of Russia is one of the eminent Russian strategic thinkers whose views count in Russia’s foreign policy-making process. Karganov traces the roots of the present Russia-Ukraine war to NATO’s enlargement programme in the post-Soviet space. In an interview published in Russian International Affairs Council titled ‘We are at war with the West. The European security order is illegitimate’, Karganov highlights the point that “Ukraine was being built by the US and other NATO countries as a spearhead, maybe of aggression or at least of military pressure, to bring NATO’s military machine closer to the heart of Russia. We can see now how well their forces had been preparing for war”. He further emphasises the point that the only way to end the crisis is “the creation of a country in South and South-East Ukraine that is friendly to Russia”. Thus, Karganov is making clear Moscow’s strategic intention to curb the Nato’s expansion and weaken Ukraine’s supply chain in terms of getting arms from the West thus creating a new kind of geopolitical buffer by recognising the independence of both Donetsk and Luhansk republics bordering Russia.
Dmitry Trenin is a policy analyst based in Moscow known for his path-breaking work End of Eurasia: Russia on the border between Geopolitics and Globalisation, published in 2001, known for his balanced political analysis of Russia’s foreign policy conquers with the view of American geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski that “without Ukraine, Russia is not an empire”. (p.106). These explanations on part of Trenin highlight Russia’s imperial intention over the tears. In this regard, it may be underlined here that in the initial days of the Russia-Ukraine war Trenin wrote a piece in Russian Daily Kommersant titled ‘The Russian flag on the front line in the Donbas will sharply raise the stakes in case of aggravation’ where Trenin highlights that it “will lead to a radical change in the geopolitical situation in the east of Europe and a completely new, even in comparison with the confrontation of recent years, quality of relations with the US and the European Union”.
The prognosis made by Trenin highlights both the US and EU countries under the ambit of NATO are directly or indirectly providing all kinds of support including military to Ukraine even though Russia is putting strong objections to it. As stated by Trenin because of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, the geopolitical situation in and around Europe is undergoing a complex change. Even both Sweden and Finland are planning to join NATO which to a greater extent may alter the existing geopolitical situation in this part of the world.
The writings of Andrey Kortunov, who serves as the Director-General of the influential policy-making body Russia International Affairs Council (RIAC) also, throw much light on the present context of the Russia-Ukraine war. In this regard, it may be underlined here that Kortunov’s article ‘The End of Diplomacy? Seven Glimpses of the New Normal’ underlines that the Russia and Ukraine war will propel a new world order which will challenge the “status quo” nature of the present world order dominated by the West. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that “the strategic goal will be to isolate Russia on the world stage as much as possible, as this will supposedly set limits on Moscow’s ability to diversify its foreign policy, economic and other ties”. The sanctions imposed on Russia by the West though to a great extent limit the geopolitical options. Russia is also using its energy as a major weapon to bargain with the West more particularly with the European countries. Already Europe is in a major crisis over accessibility to Russian energy.
A critical analysis of the geopolitical writings of the above Russian scholars highlights five major vectors in the context of Russia’s geopolitical thinking. These are:
1. There is a great deal of hesitation lies there in Russia in the official circles to accept Ukraine’s “independent statehood”. Putin’s writing as discussed above also reflects this strand.
2. There is unanimity among the Russian strategic circles that the West along with NATO is provoking Ukraine to enter into a war with Russia.
3. Russian geopolitical analysts are also questioning the very basis of the “status quo” nature of the international order led by the US.
4. There is unanimity of opinion among the Russian geopolitical analysts that the present War by the West against Russia aims at denying Russia its rightful place in the global order by putting all kinds of sanctions.
5. To protect its strategic interests Russia is aiming at creating a cordon sanitaire by recognising the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk republics from Ukraine. The same formula Russia employed during its war with Georgia where it declared both South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent from Georgia. In this regard, it may be underlined here that these moves by Russia to a significant extent will weaken Ukraine.
One most perplexing issue which confronts both policymakers, as well as the academic community, is to offer a timeline for when the war between Russia and Ukraine is going to end. In this regard, drawing from the lessons of history it can be underlined here that though bilateral negotiations are going by both the parties to resolve the crisis at the same time there is a need for a more active role by international multilateral bodies like the UN to resolve the crisis. However, the moot point of the present strategic impasse is the lack of trust between both sides rooted in the historical past which is impairing the peace process. At the same time, the war will further as it is not as easy as President Putin thought to defeat Ukraine. Though President Putin is looking for a victory as Russia›s Victory Day is nearer, however, the task is much more arduous.
Thus, the only way to end the present war between Russia and Ukraine is through the position taken by India to resolve the crisis. India’s approach to ending the war between these two Slavic brothers is through “mediation” and “diplomatic initiatives”, so also providing humanitarian assistance to the common people affected by the war. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted India’s policy by underlining the fact that, “The ongoing war (Russia-Ukraine war) is affecting every country across the world. India is on peace’s side and hopes that all problems are resolved with deliberations”. Similarly, while interacting with the press during his recent visit to Germany on 2 May 2022, Prime Minister Modi further highlighted that “No country can emerge victorious in the Ukraine conflict. We are for peace, appeal to end the war”.
One hope, looking at the complex geopolitical situation in and around post-Soviet Eurasian geopolitics, India’s approach to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine is the only alternative left at the present moment to end the impasse.
The author teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The views expressed are personal.