Russia-Ukraine & 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse

RUSSIAN PResident Putin’s 11-minute Victory Day speech had little to celebrate. On the 75th day of the Russian offensive, he said the military action was a pre-emptive move to ward off aggression from the West. The challenge by Nazi-inspired nationalists in Ukraine was similar to that faced in 1941 by the Soviet Union, from Germany. Cryptically, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, in his speech, stated in the backdrop of World War II: “We won then. We will win again.”

World War-II ended with the dropping of atomic bombs. In the Ukraine war, Russia gave a warning of the use of N-weapons right at the outset. This was reinforced with an announcement that Russian nuclear forces had been placed on alert. Later, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on April 26, stated that the West was risking WW-III. This is the first time that an N-threat has been issued at the beginning of an offensive by conventional forces. We will not be able to go back to ‘business as usual’, as was thought initially.

Arguably, Europe, over the centuries, has been at the centre of some of the worst scourges of humankind due to war. Unfortunately, the world wars are a horrific high-water mark in human carnage. World War I, with its human cost estimated at 40 million, and World War II at 70 million, are grim reminders. These estimates in no way reflect the millions more displaced and pushed into poverty.

 Approximately 73,905 (WW-I) and 2,50,000 (WW-II) of these were Indians. These wars originated in Europe. What is worse is that in the pre-WW-I years and during the course of the war, politico-military bungling and incompetence were directly responsible for aggravating the carnage.

The hope of humanity post 1947 became linked to the UN and its resultant world order. Despite being locked in a cold war, there was no Europe-centred war, though there were several regional, proxy and irregular wars that continued to ravage the world. The European continent was visited by war in March 1991, in Yugoslavia. This conflict extended till 2001, resulting in the break-up of the country’s constituents into independent nations. A clutch of UN missions was deployed in the region; most significant was the UNPROFOR under Chapter VII of the UN charter which employed all instruments of war-fighting. NATO and Russia had functioned together as peacekeepers for nearly five years during the long and tortured course of this war. Both major powers were on the same side. Scars of war take generations to heal and at times never go away, but largely in Europe, peace has held, since.

The Russian offensive on Ukraine has changed it all. Being a true war of the 21st century, there is acute polarisation in the world and a profusion of unreliable facts. Given the fluidity of events and an occlusion of reality, any operational assessment is inadvisable. Certain conclusions, however, are evident.

There seems to have been a clear underestimation by Russia of the Ukrainian fighting resolve, coupled with a flawed understanding of its own capability. The change in Russian generalship — from Valery Gerasimov to Aleksander Dvornikov — and the adoption of a unified command in the field so late in the offensive are indicative of a far deeper malaise in the politico-military command structure.

It is evident that the high point of Russian centrality earned in the Syrian war has been eclipsed. In Syria, it was the Russian special forces, aircraft and advisers who ran the show, the fighting was done by the Syrian army and a collection of militias and non-state actors. All major powers had got together to eliminate DAISH.

In Ukraine, it was evident well before the offensive that support to Ukraine would coalesce. The only hope for Russia was the rapid attainment of its militico-political objectives, in which it failed.

History reminds us that WW-II ended with the dropping of atomic bombs. In the Ukraine war, Russia gave a warning of the use of nuclear weapons right at the initiation of the offensive. This was reinforced with an announcement that Russian nuclear forces had been placed on alert. The clearest enunciation came later when Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on April 26, detailed the threat and stated that the West was risking WW-III. This is the first time that an unambiguous nuclear threat has been articulated right at the commencement of an offensive by conventional forces.

The world must now come to terms with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse that have been set to ride:

(1) The UNHQs and, specifically, the Security Council, has been targeted commencing from Somalia 1990, and has now been brought to a level that it is unable fulfil its mandate. This has been recently prominently seen in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and, now, Ukraine. Given the global schisms, it is unlikely that it will be able to do so in future. We look at a world order where it is everyone for themselves, with no hope of collective security.

(2) Nuclear weapons are now the “bitcoins” and “etherem” of military power. The Russian example will only serve to encourage the incipient N-nations to weaponise. A rash of N-capable states, with distinct socio-cultural identities is unlikely to be amenable to any collective security restrictions, especially in view of the failed Great Power efforts. N-use and N-war is no longer the ultimate domain.

(3) Sanctions and restrictions that had shaky origins in the 1990s have now become precisely targeted, with an ability to cause pain and emasculate. This newfound power will be enhanced and in future enable remote enfeeblement of countries and individuals. An inexorable shift in power to the financially dominant has occurred. They are free to use this power based on their logic and sensibilities.

(4) The greatest assault is on the human ability to reason, consider and reach logical conclusions. This is the intellectual force of humankind. A convergence of media, cyberspace and IT, fired by profit and riding on AI, has made the determination of reality and exercise of reason a daunting proposition. This trend will accelerate and continue to mislead thought and misdirect free will.

In a wider view, we cannot escape the fact that the only nation with great power capability is the US. Its present economic and international posture cannot take away from the fact that it has exceptional expeditionary capabilities in the conventional domain as well as a well-rounded and highly focussed ability for war in other domains under its Special Operations Command. Its nuclear competence needs no elaboration. The US capabilities as well as capacities are all in place, intentions and will to execute or deploy are linked to its strategic priorities.

On the other side of the globe, China is likely to gain great advantages and centrality from this conflict. Its assertive statements on the South China Sea as well as Taiwan are ascendant. The shrill targeting of Quad is clearly indicative of its discomfiture. It is unlikely to get any soft options along the Himalayas. It will definitely use this moment to reposition its ambitions.

The Russian offensive and the resultant war have changed the paradigm for the world. We will not be able to go back to ‘business as usual’, as was thought initially. Volatility has been injected, with far-reaching consequences for security, commerce, finance and economies. This will result in a desultory impact on the creation of prosperity and reduction of poverty globally.