Though not formally confirmed, it seems imminent that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will commence his first official visit to Ukraine on August 23. Why details of this scheduled visit were prematurely released to the media is unknown. It’s also possible to conjecture on the purpose and motivation behind this visit.
It is well known that the Ukrainians are eager for an Indian visit, which they may interpret as a sign of more sympathy for the Ukrainian cause and a more impartial Indian stance. A large number of international figures, primarily from the West, have traveled to Ukraine to offer their support to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The president of Ukraine has received invitations to participate in international gatherings like the G7 summits and has made numerous trips, mostly to Western nations. India was under pressure to extend an invitation to him for the G20 meeting that it would be hosting, but it declined.
India, a significant non-Western nation and the head of the global south, visiting Ukraine would indicate to the country that more people throughout the world sympathize with and comprehend its plight as a victim of Russian aggression. The idea that the Ukrainian crisis was fundamentally a poorly handled European problem that the Europeans needed to resolve and that the rest of the world needed to be spared from its unfavorable effects would also be lessened.
Naturally, Prime Minister Modi has spoken with Zelenskyy over the phone. The two have also met in person at the G7 meeting in Italy, where Modi gave him an embrace. India has also provided Ukraine with humanitarian supplies. Naturally, none of this would have the same effect as Modi visiting the war-torn country of Ukraine in person.
There has been a lot of discussion in Western and even domestic foreign policy circles about how India, with its strong relations to Russia and support for diplomacy and communication to resolve the current issue, could be able to act as a sort of mediator. India’s ability to broker an agreement on the Ukraine issue at the G20 meeting strengthened its credentials for such a role.
Modi’s statement to Putin during the 2022 SCO meeting in Samarkand that “we are not living in a time of war” has also received a lot of attention. This statement was seen by some in the West as a criticism.
India elected to send a senior official to the peace summit on Ukraine, even though Ukraine was eager for India to participate at the level of Modi or, in the event of that, at the level of the Foreign Minister.
Additionally, India disapproved of the summit’s final communiqué. What then might be the motivations for Modi’s anticipated visit to Ukraine? These could have more than one purpose.
The Americans have had no qualms about how displeased they are with Modi’s trip to Moscow for the resumption of the India-Russia summits, which coincided with the NATO summit in Washington, D.C. It seems that they suggested that India think about rescheduling the visit.
The State Department informed the US Congress that they had a difficult discussion with India over their concerns regarding Modi’s visit, as reported by the US National Security Adviser in public. The fact that Modi embraced Putin during the visit and it coincided with the shelling of a children’s hospital in Kiev incited a strong reaction from Zelenskyy.
Also Read: Have India, China started resolving strained ties?
It may have been decided to scuttle this by making a gesture to Ukraine in order to manage the bad fallout from Modi’s visit to Russia and keep it from festering and being used by anti-Indian elements in the US establishment in the months to come. One could have argued that India had sufficiently shown that its national interest, not US inclinations, would guide its policy toward Russia.
After winning reelection, Modi traveled to Russia for his first bilateral overseas visit, sending a clear message to the US and the West. Given this, India could afford to make a move without having to demonstrate to the US the fundamental elements of its stance.
The reasoning behind this is that if Zelenskyy received a direct message of peace and dialogue while in Ukraine, Modi’s call for diplomacy and negotiation to resolve the war would seem more persuasive. A message like this would resonate because it would be completely different from the one that the West is still trying to get through to Ukraine, which is one of escalating armed backing and ongoing proxy war.
Even though the details are murky and there hasn’t been a fair international investigation to find out the truth, it is a fact that Modi reinforced his earlier peace message at Samarkand by publicly expressing his intense distress during his meeting with Putin regarding the killing of civilians, particularly children, in wartime. This occurred during the bombing of the children’s hospital in Kiev while he was in Moscow. Modi emphasized the idea while keeping an eye on its global ramifications.
In Moscow, Modi and Putin had one-on-one talks that lasted several hours. He surely gained a strong understanding of Putin’s perspective on the situation in Ukraine. Putin has stated time and time again that he is open to a diplomatic resolution, provided that the altered geographical facts on the ground are accepted. His understanding of how the war can be resolved differs greatly from Zelenskyy’s and his administration’s.
Whatever the rhetoric of the government and its Western backers, it is doubtful whether Ukraine can hold onto its current position in the face of a lack of military success on the ground, significant losses in men and material, resistance to mobilization, population exodus, dependence on external support, etc.
The biggest unknown for Ukraine is the probable November US presidential election, which will see Donald Trump and JD Vance take office and put a stop to the conflict. America’s backing cannot be replaced by Europe.
Given this context, it’s possible that Russia wouldn’t mind if Modi brought Zelenskyy down to earth with a message of peace. For various reasons, the US would welcome Modi’s visit, viewing India’s deference to Zelenskyy as a diplomatic victory.
India might have also concluded that China has been encouraging peace initiatives in Ukraine without raising any red flags with Moscow. In actuality, China had designated a special envoy to mediate the situation in Ukraine and had put out certain particular peace recommendations that Putin had mostly accepted. Plans to present a unified peace proposal have been revealed by China and Brazil.
One could argue that India shouldn’t permit a nation like China, which is seriously undermining peace along its border with China and in the western Pacific, to monopolize the peace platform. India might also engage in free diplomatic outreach, since it is well aware that Washington, DC, is ultimately the key to achieving peace in the Ukraine.
Remarkably, both sides “highlighted the imperative of peaceful resolution of the conflict around Ukraine through dialogue and diplomacy including engagement between both parties,” according to paragraph 74 of the Joint Statement released on the occasion of the Modi-Putin summit. They expressed gratitude for the pertinent mediation and good offices suggestions that were made in an effort to resolve the situation peacefully in line with international law and the principles of the UN Charter.
India is tacitly supporting good offices and mediation efforts by other parties, including China’s, with the intention of resolving the Ukraine crisis peacefully. Perhaps this odd phrase also clarifies the space made for PM Modi’s visit to Ukraine with a focus on peace.
