US DILEMMA OVER UKRAINE CRISIS & GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL POWER SHIFT

 

“On the global stage, words of dominant geopolitical powers may or may not reflect their true resolve and capabilities. But their actions during crucial geopolitical power plays are strongly indicative of their intent and capabilities, or lack of them.”

– Veteran Col RS Sidhu

 

Backdrop

To understand Ukraine one should grasp the two truisms of US polity. First, US is a nation constantly in search of an enemy. Second, is the presence of influential policy lobbyists who are the main operators of the levers driving its foreign policy.

In the eight decades since the 1940s, US has engaged in near continuous ideological conflict and warfare world-wide, well beyond its sovereign borders, to safeguard its perceived geopolitical interests. Its conflict with communist ideology led it to two major military interventions. The Korean war from 1950 – 53, and the Vietnam war from 1955 – 1975. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in downgrading of the communist threat. US militarily intervened in Iraq, during the First Gulf War, before the Twin Tower bombings of 2001 provided it with legitimate cause to engage in an ongoing war against terror. This war against a new enemy has led US to militarily intervene in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2020, as also in other sovereign states in West Asia such as Iraq, Libya, Syria. The rise of China on the world stage as a rival to US geopolitical supremacy has resulted in US disengagement from Afghanistan and pivot to the East to challenge China on its doorstep in South China Sea and East China Sea.

The presence and influence of policy lobbyists in US polity is also equally well established. The four main lobby domains comprise the military-industrial complex, energy, pharma, and the evangelical sectors. Whereas the First Gulf War was fought ostensibly to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, the Second Gulf War, under the garb of divesting Iraq of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, was all about controlling the oil rich economy of the region. The behind the scenes power and influence essayed by the US military-industrial complex is best summed up by the two decades of wasteful expenditure incurred in Afghanistan. The reluctance of Pentagon to disengage from Afghanistan despite attempts by successive White House Presidential regimes to move out from this unproductive quagmire is well documented and is adequate hint of the decisive hold of this lobby on foreign and defence policy organs of US Government. Even the finally White House enforced pulling out from Afghanistan was resisted till the bitter end, resulting in a mismanaged withdrawal rivalling the US departure from Vietnam in 1975.

The Geopolitical Environment

The rise of China on the world stage has posed an unprecedented challenge to US geopolitical supremacy, making the former as its number one adversary, and relegating Russia to a secondary status in terms of appreciated threat. The comparative economic and strategic power projections of US and China clearly forecast the formers inability to successfully overcome the challenge posed by the new rival. Earlier in the 1970s, when faced with USSR led Communist challenge, US under Nixon – Kissinger leadership had engineered a rapprochement with China to weaken the Communist bloc.

In the long term, China and Russia are more of natural adversaries. The vast Siberian region, sparsely populated and mineral rich, is an attractive prize for the ever expanding Chinese economy. A dominant China would eye to annex Siberian mineral resources, and being closer to home, a more dangerous threat to Russia in the long term.  Russia is also wary of expanding Chinese interests in Central Asia, its backyard. A strong and friendly Russia would serve US and NATO interests better in checkmating China, their acknowledged number one adversary. The US would have been well advised to drive a wedge between Russia and China. But all attempts previously by former President Trump to forge a friendly relationship with Russia were foiled by its military-industrial, and energy lobbies.

It is these lobbies which are driving US policy vis a vis Russia, driving the Bear and the Dragon into a close but uncomfortable embrace. NATO has been consistent in its attempt to expand eastwards. In 2014 it​ orchestrated a regime change in Ukraine, which was more favourable to the West. The new Ukraine Government has been lobbying for an invitation to be a NATO member. Such an eventuality will bring NATO to the Russian doorstep in its soft underbelly in the South, a legitimate security concern for Russia. In the short term, China's belligerence against US and NATO assists Russia in diverting geopolitical pressure from its area of interest, and with the US pivot to the East, Russia looks at this as an opportune moment to secure its Southern borders. 

Russia regards the erstwhile USSR territories as it's legitimate area of national interest, just as the US considers North America as it's backyard. Ukraine is erstwhile USSR territory. It's also mineral rich and heavily industriali​s​ed. 

Strategic Overreach

The first US response of inducting token troop reinforcements to other European countries rather than to beleaguered Ukraine, was tantamount to forecasting its intent to not support Ukraine militarily. NATO pronouncements of according primacy to economic sanctions also laid bare their reluctance to support Ukraine militarily. The West had thus foreclosed it's direct intervention options, even before the Russian intervention in Ukraine.

This indirect response of US and NATO glaringly highlights their reluctance or indeed even their inability to tackle Russia in its backyard. The strategic calculus of China taking advantage of US and NATO involvement in the Caucasus, to further its geopolitical interests in East China Sea and Taiwan, does play a role in a weakened US and NATO response.

The West has been caught in a classic strategic overreach. Russia has now delivered the coup de grace in Ukraine, leaving the West in a quandary between the South China Sea and Caucasian regions! Trying to be strong in two distant lands, they've come a cropper in both!! A dilemma of US own making, and one which showcases Joe Biden as one of the weakest POTUS post-WWII.

Geopolitical Equations for India

China is the No 1 adversary for the US, but too powerful to be tackled by it alone. If the US continues to focus on the Russian threat, it leaves the field clear to China in the east.

The US and NATO inability to defend Ukraine when the chips are down, shall also raise doubt about their ability to aid Taiwan effectively against China. To that extent it shall fuel Chinese belligerence in South China Sea and East China Sea maritime regions. It is also bound to throw a shadow of doubt on the reliability of US support to India in its conflict with China.

Europe’s dependence on Russian energy supplies casts doubts on the efficacy of long term impact of the economic sanctions on the latter. Russia may thus emerge as a more reliable partner in moderating China’s belligerence towards India.

India cannot afford to place its eggs in one basket by overtly supporting US and NATO, as this path shall come with its own severe penalties in the geopolitical field. India shall serve its interest best by hedging its bets, mouthing platitudes, and not taking any overt side.