Sanjha Morcha

Putin tones down bluster

Assures world that Russia is not thinking of nuclear escalation

Putin tones down bluster

Shyam Saran

Former Foreign Secretary and senior fellow, Centre for Policy Research

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s wide-ranging speech and the subsequent Q&A session at the October 27 Valdai Club annual gathering have received less attention than they deserve. They provide rare but important insights into his thinking about the changing geopolitical situation and Russia’s relationships with key countries, including India and China, in the context of its sharpening confrontation with the West. There is a change in tone from bluster to a more muted posture.

However, unless Russia gives up territorial acquisitions in Ukraine as part of a peace deal, the war is likely to rage on.

The narrative is being deflected from the patent illegitimacy of Russian invasion of Ukraine to the latter’s role as an instrument of the West in imposing its dominance over a strong and independent Russia. He painted this as a symptom of a longstanding western assertion of global hegemony and presented Russia’s resistance as part and parcel of a global struggle against it. His speech could have been made by a non-aligned leader, seeking a more democratic, multipolar and fair global order, adherence to the UN Charter and strengthening of international institutions and multilateral processes. This was not the language of a great power seeking equal status with the reigning hegemon. Would this gain credibility among the large constituency of developing countries? That is unlikely.

Putin did not confirm his attendance at the forthcoming G20 summit in Indonesia. ‘May be I will go, too, I will think about it,’ is all that he would say. In his speech, he did not refer to Ukraine and it is only in the Q&A session that he touched upon the evolving military situation there and confirmed a scaled down objective of the so-called ‘special military operation’. This is now the extension of physical control over the Russian-speaking Donbas region, which has been formally annexed to Russia. He acknowledged obliquely the reverses which Russian forces have been facing in the region, declaring, ‘….they have been creating a fortified area that cut deep enough into Donbas, and, of course, venturing there and suffering losses was pointless.’

Acknowledging the losses that Russia has suffered, including economic losses, Putin asserted that ‘there are enormous acquisitions and what is happening now will, without any doubt, ultimately, I want to emphasise this, will ultimately be beneficial to Russia and its future.’ Among these acquisitions he mentioned Russia’s economic resilience, the awareness of the country’s strengths and the revival of its spirit of self-reliance.

He did not refer to the ‘partial mobilisation’of 3 lakh reservists in the wake of heavy Russian casualties. This was an unpopular move, with recruits complaining of being sent to a ‘meat-grinder’.

Perhaps aware that the frequent references to the possible use of nuclear weapons have caused alarm, even among traditional friends of Russia, including India, Putin assured that Russia was not thinking of any escalation but merely responding to nuclear threats by some western leaders. He repeated the allegation that the Ukrainians may be contemplating detonating a dirty ‘radioactive device’ and blame it on Russia. In fact, a US media report claims that Russian allegations may have some truth behind them.

Putin had high praise for India. ‘We have a special relationship with India that emerged or was built on the foundation of a very close alliance that existed for many decades. We have never had any issues with India. I want to emphasise this, never. All we ever did was support each other. This is what is happening now and I am sure it will continue in the future.’

On Modi, he said, ‘PM Modi is one of the few people in the world today who are(sic) capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy in the interests of his people. Despite any attempts to contain or restrict something, he’s like an ice-breaker, you know, just moving calmly in the direction that the Indian state needs.’

These remarks will be received with enthusiasm within the government and the BJP, but will bring less cheer among India’s partners in the US and Europe.

He also had high praise for China and reaffirmed his friendship with President Xi Jinping. He was pointedly asked whether he had informed Xi about his plan to carry out a special military operation against Ukraine in February. His answer was ‘no’. He criticised US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. ‘Why did this granny have to trudge to Taiwan in order to provoke China into some actions?’

Putin made a distinction between the ruling elites in the US and Europe and the people in these countries who adhered to traditional values and had respect for different cultures and religions, just as, he claimed, Russia did. Western analysts interpret these remarks as directed to right-wing elements who are tired of supporting the Ukraine war effort, resentful of having to cope with the high energy and food prices resulting from the disruptions caused by the war and sanctions imposed on Russia. The Republican right in the US may well win the November Congressional elections and support for the Ukraine war may diminish. This may also affect European willingness to carry more of the burden for an extended period of time. Perhaps Putin is counting on this to compel Ukraine back to the negotiating table. In this context, his latest more conciliatory remarks are noteworthy, ‘We have said many times that we are ready to negotiate…but the leaders of the Kiev regime have decided not to continue negotiations with the Russian federation.’ He argued that this could be resolved through an ‘appropriate signal’ from Kiev’s supporters, that is, the US. But the real issue is that Russia is unlikely to agree to give up any of its territorial acquisitions in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement.

In all likelihood, therefore, the war will grind on. Putin’s optimism may be misplaced.


A historical perspective of border row with China

And that idea got further reinforced with Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to mainland China shortly after. Perhaps, herein also lay the seeds of Nehru’s latter days’ optimism in the spirit of “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” and who could fault him but narrow-minded sceptics? However, what followed a mere two decades later was to belie every vestige of the hoped-for fraternity between Asia’s two ancient civilisations.

A historical perspective of border row with China

Lt Gen Baljit Singh (Retd)

Military commentator

For the benefit of India’s post 1970 generations, it may be pertinent to recount briefly the history leading to the emergence of both India and China as sibling Republics, in 1947 and 1949, respectively, after years of long and bitter struggles against their respective entrenched orders. While India’s freedom movement was anchored by Mahatma Gandhi around the ideology of non-violence, that of China was coloured by a full-blown war against the Japanese invasion in 1938 followed by a decade of a bloody civil war during the PLA’s “Long March”.

There was no formal unity of purpose between these two countries, yet there existed a sense of unstated sympathy for each other’s cause. So much so, that in 1938, Chinese General Zhu De made a formal request to Jawaharlal Nehru for a team of physicians to manage their mounting battlefield casualties. The Indian National Congress promptly appealed through a press statement, resulting in five volunteer medicos: M Atal from Allahabad, M Cholkar from Nagpur, DS Kotnis from Solapur, BK Basu and Debesh Mukherjee from Kolkata. Additionally, one donor provided an ambulance and the All-India China Day Fund peaked at Rs 22,000!

On arrival at the Chinese port of Hankou, they were transported to Yan’an, to be welcomed personally by Mao Zedong, Zhu De and other top leaders of the Communist Party because it was “help from a nation itself struggling for freedom, to another nation also struggling for its freedom.” And that idea got further reinforced with Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to mainland China shortly after. Perhaps, herein also lay the seeds of Nehru’s latter days’ optimism in the spirit of “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” and who could fault him but narrow-minded sceptics?

However, what followed a mere two decades later was to belie every vestige of the hoped-for fraternity between Asia’s two ancient civilisations. Within days of the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in November 1949, the restive PLA first flexed its muscles to ignite war on the Korean peninsula and, in 1952, switched gear to annex Tibet (for eons a sovereign country) with the motherland. So, by a wicked twist of destiny, what for several centuries had been the acknowledged and open Indo-Tibet boundary was to metamorphose by 1954 as the bitterly, ongoing, disputed Sino-India border.

China’s aggressive intents were fairly well read both by Prime Minister Nehru and the Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. But sadly, the downsized Indian Army, post WW-II, was woefully inadequate to defend both the western and northern borders simultaneously.

It was against this despondent backdrop that what in hindsight proved the sterile policy of “Showing the Flag” by deploying Army posts such as the trio of Mechuka (West Siang), Longju (East Siang) and Kibithoo (Lohit Valley) in the extreme North-Eastern disputed segment and Rimkin (Joshimath district) in the disputed Middle Sector; separated from each other and homeland India by a totally inaccessible terrain. For instance, as recent as 1987, it took soldiers 12 to 16 arduous days marching from Sadia to reach the destination, Mechuka!

Of course, none of these extremely isolated posts, sited on express security purposes, would have been viable but for the highly motivated and skilled crews of the IAF who manoeuvred their magnificent flying machines through highly challenging ground and aerial environment with aplomb. The approximately 800-metre long Mechuka ALG was less than 30 km from the Sino-Indian border, which inhibited the pilots from making a circuit to descend and ease on the throttle. As such, they kind of “dropped down” with a thud somewhere close to the midpoint of the ALG in the hope that breaks would thence hold fast!

The skin prickled with a sudden rash of goose bumps, the heart pounded in the ears above the roar of engines straining to terminate the flight on the constricted, ad hoc landing strip. The takeoff is another magnificent experience and at the same time, somewhat chilling and weirdly dramatic; the engines of the aircraft in its stationery mode are revved to full throttle to develop maximum thrust, the AN32 literally starts bucking upon the ALG like an unbroken rodeo horse and on climaxing, it zooms forward like a shooting star, lifting above the mountain top within kissing distance of its tree tops!

In closing, allow me to go back to the Indian Medical Mission in the Wuhan province in 1938, where Dr Dwarkanath Shantaram Kotnis and Chinese nurse Guo Quinglan fall in love, get married in 1941 and have a son, who on the advice of Nie Rongzhen (a PLA officer) was named Yinhua — Yin (India) and Hua (China)! Sadly, like many blighted love stories, Dr Kotni died in the line of duty on December 9, 1942. Mao Zedong, during the burial of Dr Kotnis in the Heroes Courtyard of Nanquan village, went on record in his homage, “The Army has lost a helping hand, the nation has lost a friend. Let us always bear in mind his internationalist spirit.”

In fact, Mao Zedong wrote in hand a condolence note to the Kotnis family, a copy of which was presented by China to the University of Mumbai, in 1950. And true to that sentiment, every Chinese leader visiting India, beginning with Chou En Lai in the 1950s and as recent as November 2006 President Hu Jintao, had the widow, Guo Quinglan, in their delegation to India and together, they visited the Kotni family.

Isn’t this a fancy baggage from the history of the Sino-Indian fraternity which should nudge the two nations to break from the troubled past and accept the existing status quo as the international border?


Lt. Gen. Ajai Kumar Singh takes over reins of Army’s Southern Command

Mumbai, Nov 1 (IANS): Lt Gen Ajai Kumar Singh has taken over as the new chief of the Indian Army’s Southern Command, headquartered in Pune, officials said on Tuesday.

An alumnus of the National Defence Academy, Pune and the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, he took over from the outgoing Commander J. S. Nain, who relinquished charge on Monday.

Commissioned into the army’s 7/11 Gorkha Rifles in Dec. 1984, Lt Gen Singh has vast operational experience of all types of terrain, whether counter-insurgency areas, high altitude and icy glaciated regions like Siachen or the hot deserts.

He commanded the 1/11 Gorkha Rifles on the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir, an elite brigade in the Wwstern theatre, a frontline counter-insurgency force in the Kashmir Valley, and the Trishakti Corps in the northeast.

He has also held key instructional and staff appointments like Instructor at the Commando Wing, Belgaum, Additional Director General of Military Operations and Director General Operational Logistic & Strategic Movement at the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

He was also a diplomat-soldier with a stint as Officer-in-Charge, PPO Dharan at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu.

On taking over, he paid homage to the fallen soldiers by laying a wreath at the Southern Command War Memorial in Pune.

Lt Gen Nain – who was appointed in February 2021, lauded all the ranks of the command for their unflinching commitment, dedication and devotion in accomplishing assigned tasks in extremely challenging operational environments

Note
The Indian Army website mentions St. Gabriels’ Academy ….AIHS school which has produced many Army offers being affiliated to Bengal Engineers Group and centre Roorkee and was located in Roorkee cantt.