View from India: “If the Russians are to get their way fully, it will mean a massive political and strategic defeat for the West”

Kanwal Sibal
Photo: RT International

Kanwal Sibal, former Indian Foreign Secretary and distinguished diplomat, former ambassador to Russia, Türkiye, Egypt and France, gave an interview for Indian ‘First Post’. There are some interesting points:

What is the reason behind West’s Russophobia? Is it cultural, civilizational, existential, or something else entirely? The fact is that Russia looms very large in Europe. It’s the biggest country in the world. Huge military power, world’s biggest nuclear power sitting on enormous resources…

In Europe, there has always been this geopolitical conundrum on how to deal with this giant! Russia has been – when it was the Soviet Union – a peer power of the United States. So, Europe has been caught in between the foremost global power and its challenger.

Remember that Europe was decimated during the Second World War. Not only did the continent lose its colonies, but the Europeans were also considerably weakened and suffered terrible economic damage. They had no choice but to come under the wings of the US, that had an ideological antipathy towards communism and employed a policy of containment towards Russia.

US animosity, ideological and otherwise towards Russia, therefore, became a part of the European thinking. In addition, of course, to their own historical experiences of fighting Russia – the Crimean War, for example.

Russia wanted to have an agreement with the EU. I was then the ambassador to Russia. The EU said that, look, we can’t give you any special treatment. Russia was asked to measure up to the standards of Western democracy before it can be treated as a partner… I sent a message to our own government (New Delhi) that this is remarkable.

Europe’s actions seem illogical, irrational at many levels. Britain, for example, is signing a 100-year security agreement with Ukraine. I read the text. It’s a military alliance where apart from building up forces of Ukraine and everything else, they will undertake joint maritime patrols in the Black Sea, including the Sea of Azov, which the Russians have declared as ‘inland water’.

That’s a clear challenge (to Russia). Is Europe preparing for a 100-year period of confrontation with Russia?

Number two, there’s a lot of economic mess in Europe. Britain is in serious trouble. France is in a ruptured situation. Macron has lost control of the Parliament. Germany is in a political and economic mess. If Europeans are going to spend so much money on defense, raising it from 2 per cent to 3 per cent and maybe some to 5 per cent, this will come at cost of their social programs. So, social unrest may increase. Can they up their defence expenditure without social costs?

Third, what is the €800 billion plan for rearmament? That means it’ll increase the indebtedness of individual European countries as the debt levels are becoming unmanageable, especially for countries like France. What’s the perspective? Permanent hostility with Russia? They build up… let’s say… this big war machine. To use against whom? They can’t use it against Russia.

If America doesn’t want to use it against Russia except through proxies, whom will they use it against? Europe can’t directly challenge Russia, so how would they justify it to the public? That is why Europeans are creating this fear psychosis that ‘if Russians win in Ukraine, they are going to walk on the streets of Paris and attack even Portuguese’ and stuff like that. And that the neighboring countries, Poland and the Baltic states and Romania have ‘existential threat’. One may wonder at the quality of leadership that Europe has.

There’s a lot of skepticism whether there can be a reasonable agreement between the US and Russia on Ukraine. Despite all the goodwill that Trump may have with regard to beginning the process of normalization with Russia, can he do it? Putin’s said that even when the sanctions are lifted, then they adopt a new way to impose another form of sanctions. There is a limit to the kind of normalization process that is necessary to resolve the conflict.

Number two, Putin has right from the start, made his position very, very clear. Ukraine cannot be a military threat to Russia. When he talks about demilitarization, Putin is putting limitations on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces. They cannot be supplied with the latest NATO weapons. There is obviously incongruence when you want durable and lasting peace while building up Ukraine militarily. That’s not deterrence. It’s driven by the logic that sees Russia as a threat. This is not a solid base for ushering in the ‘era of peace’.

Number three, the Russians are very sensitive to ‘denazification’. The Western Ukrainians who now have grabbed power and were responsible for the coup d’etat, have had historical links with the Nazis… The Azov brigade (banned in Russia), for instance. The other very important thing is the recognition of the four regions that Russians have now incorporated – plus Crimea – as part of Russia.