Why is it not a surprise that Vladimir Putin’s almost half-an-hour speech has evoked such differing reactions? Ostensibly, for his countrymen, the overt audience was the world, and through his penchant of delivering diverse messages Mr Putin addressed businesses, world leaders, and his allies in one go. Rarely has a speech had such predictable outcomes. Carefully crafted, choreographed, and enacted, each step of the venture had its desired effect.
Europe and the US came up with diverse, cluttered, and tepid versions of what they call sanctions. That includes re-sanctioning a bank that was sanctioned by the US seven years ago already. That was when the world expressed outrage and conveniently brushed the annexation of Crimea under the carpet. Traditionally an ally, the supposed bastion of democracy, India called for “restraint,” as did China. And so the world was divided even when the sovereignty of a country is up for question.
Putin had everyone trying to guess his next step. Not known for expressing emotion, the stony-faced Russian leader left his words to convey a stream of comments that ranged from anger, hurt, and steely resolve.
Two aspects of the speech have led to quiet scrambling across the world in making out the repercussions for the present and the future. From harping on the security conditions that were demanded, he has, in later speeches, gone on to call for the demilitarization of Ukraine, which suggests that his military moves won’t stop with protective barriers for the two recognized republics.
The UN and the world were helpless in preventing and undoing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. That the same will happen now is almost inevitable. It isn’t a war with Russia over territory, not under the Nato umbrella. The impunity with which Russia had troops march over the Belarusian border gives rise to further chills. Putin’s egregious fancy towards a re-Sovietization has sent quiet tremors among states that chose to leave the union in 1991. Using the pretext of joint military drills with Belarus to position and ready his forces for a multi-pronged attack, Putin has proved another point.
President Alexander Lukashenko is prepared to be a pawn with the dribble of an excuse that none of his troops were involved. A further reminder, if it were needed, that Belarus would give in far more easily than Ukraine, where his counterpart Volodomyr Zelensky is putting on a brave face. Unlike Putin’s recognized republics, Zelensky hasn’t requested foreign military support.
With more and more Nato leaders emphasizing they won’t send in any combat troops unless a Nato country is threatened or attacked, the world will see a raft of sanctions to try and weaken Russia’s resolve. Ultimately, they too will be tapered down in the face of “business as usual.” How hard and pestering the Ukrainian resistance is will determine the protraction of conflict.
Putin has designed his adventurism with a totally new strategy, combining aspects of cyber warfare, economic preparation, shrewd evaluation of the forces to be expectedly pushed at him, as well as counter-balancing negative opinion with at least neutral stands by at least two major players.
China will find it as supportive of their One China + Hong Kong strategy. Perhaps to the extent of settling issues with India. Israel will gloat over, further shovelling into the earth the two-nation theory based on the plan signed off by Donald Trump. The former US president has come out loud and strong that Putin’s strategy was “sheer genius.” These have historical precedents, however murky. History is about what happened, something to be learned from. But if Ukraine is used as another juggling ball by India, there is cause for concern.
Leaders of India’s ruling BJP were especially targeted in campaigns during the West Bengal elections about Chittagong, Faridpur, Khulna, and Rajshahi rightly belonging to India as per the formula prevailing prior to India and Pakistan’s creation. Central BJP leaders have gone further. They question independence and re-emphasize the creation of an undivided India that, by default, suggests taking Bangladesh and Pakistan under an Akhand Bharat.
Pope Paul had talked of creation of a New World Order. Being a man of peace, there’s little doubt that this isn’t the same in objective as the one the much-maligned former British Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn had derided, but one that current world leaders that matter also espouse.
Russia’s bold initiative might dent the Western narrative. Whichever way one looks at it, history is being recreated, restored, and rewritten. Should that succeed, the countless millions that died for nationalism and patriotism will have been sacrificed for the ambitions of an unthinking few.
Mahmudur Rahman is a writer, columnist, broadcaster, and communications specialist.