US-Russia-India Relations

One thing I like about America is that lot of people who influence foreign and domestic policies are public figures.  The debates that happen are not in closed rooms in some government building, but out in the public arena in the traditional and social media.  I refer here of course to serious policy debates, not the gaslighting that dominates social media.  Maybe this is why America still retains a certain degree of credibility in spite of a long series of mis steps since the end of the Cold War.  I wanted to write about some such public opinions from people I have come to consider as very smart.  Here it goes...

I have always wondered why one would call Political Science a Science?  The scientific method involves developing a theory, making predictions that could prove or disprove the theory and then conducting experiments to validate.

Well, you cannot conduct experiments on politics since only one outcome happens and the outcomes that don't happen, while they are fodder for endless speculations and what-if-isms, are not useful from the point of view validating a theory.

Once in a while however, someone seems makes a prediction in political science, and it turns out exactly like they predicted.  Consider watching this 45 minute lecture by Mearsheimer from 2015 (I have summary below if you don't have time):

Trust, me it is a classic and worth a watch.  For those who are unable to spend the time watching it, here is the summary (with my biases and all):

1. Russia did not stop being a "Great Power" just because Soviet Union collapsed.  
2. Countries on the periphery of Great Powers need to be careful and not poke the bear (ironic turn of phrase here considering we are talking about Russia).
3. Western powers (including US) have been trying to expand NATO and EU eastward since the 90s.  Russia has stated in no uncertain terms that it considers Ukraine being a part of NATO or EU as unacceptable.
4. Morality or Ukrainian people's opinion on this should be set aside, because it does not matter.  What matters is that Russia will certainly consider it a threat and react to it no matter the cost.
5. Western powers are giving Ukraine the wrong advice by sending signals that Ukraine will some day be part of EU and NATO.
6. Russia will wreck Ukraine before it will let it become part of NATO.  It is wrong to think this is just Putin's doing.  Any Russian government is likely to follow the same path.
7. Americans should stop believing they are a "benign power".  They are as much a great power as any other great power.  The way to think about how Ukraine in NATO will feel like to Russians is for US to imagine Canada entering into a treaty with China to allow Chinese Bases on US border.  The US is likely to go ballistic if this ever happens.  In fact, the US policy since Monroe Doctrine has been to not allow any outside country to have a military presence in either North or South America.
8. NATO expansion is dead anyway.  It has not expanded since 2008 and there is no reason for it to expand to Ukraine.  Ukraine does not serve any vital American interests.  However, Russia considers it vital to its security interests.  So in summary - they care, we don't, we will lose.
9. Better for Ukraine to be buffer state between Russia and NATO and for both parties to feel comfortable with this arrangement.
10. Russia is not a "peer competitor" to the US.  Its economy is much smaller than France, which itself is only about 3/4 the size of just California!
11. Best strategy for the US is to not encourage Ukraine to look westward (dont make noises about democracy, EU, NATO etc).  Make it clear to them that they need to find an accommodation with Russia.  Such a policy will ensure that US has a stable front and reasonable understanding with Russia and can pivot to focusing on China, which is a peer competitor.
12. US/China confrontation is inevitable.  Russia will be a massive distraction.

I wonder about a couple of assumptions in this analysis (my own what-if-isms!).  Firstly, would Ukrainians have leaned to the west even if there was no encouragement?  In other words, is Meershimer denouncing one American hubris (ignoring Russia), while displaying another American hubris of thinking that we have so much control over what Ukrainians think?  The yearning for integration with the west is likely very strong - especially in western Ukraine.  Take a look at the "grey" countries in the map.  Belarus is completely subordinated by Russia.  Historically Finland and Sweden has avoided joining NATO to keep Russian sensibilities in mind, but are closely integrated with the west anyway.  Mearsheimer is (I think) pointing to this as a model for Ukraine.  However, there is now serious rethink of this in both countries, throwing doubt on the happy path pointed to by Mearsheimer.  It is possible that neutrality is not possible in the face of a declining Russia that has a serious sting in its tail.

Another point I am not certain about is whether all Great Powers are the same, or is there such a thing as Greater Power?  Are Americans wrongly convinced they are a "Benign Great Power", or are they arrogantly (and rightly) convinced that they are a "Greater Power"?  Just a reminder of comparative sizes: Russia's GDP is (was?) 1.7 Trillion USD.  France and India are about 2.6 Trillion, California is 3.5 Trillion, US is 21 Trillion.

Either way, the US has now blundered and made Russia into a massive distraction in its longer term tussle with an assertive Communist Party in China by sleep walking into this conflict.  What is the way forward?  Here is an interview with John Bolton.  He was George W Bush's UN Ambassador and also Trump's National Security Advisor (25 Mts):

With is silly mustache and his known hatred for the UN, I really thought he was an extremist when he first became Bush's ambassador.  I have since realized he is one smart dude.  Here is one quotable quote from the interview:

Much of what we are discussing today is 20 moves into a chess game, when the US has already made 15 mistakes.

He criticizes a lot of aspects of Biden's Ukraine policy:

1. Why impose sanctions after the attack?  Why not before?
2. Why go on the record to say "America will not send troops into Ukraine"?  Why not maintain the threat and the "strategic ambiguity" about how far you will go (even if you don't intend to go that far)?
3. Sanctions need to be continuously modified and strengthened ("when you ban Russian transactions through one bank, how long do you think it takes for them to find an alternate bank to go through.")
4. Putin underestimated Western unity and also strength of sanctions that would come his way "because we did not do anything when he attacked Georgia and then Annexed Crimea".
5. It is not good to exclude Oil from sanctions since it accounts for 30-40% of Russia's export revenues.  If we really want to hurt Russia, we have to do that.
6. Germany canceling Nordstream 2 pipeline (Arctic sea pipeline that would have carried Russian Natural Gas directly to Europe) would especially worry Putin.
7. China is watching very closely.  The west excluding oil from sanctions on Russia (because Europe is dependent on Russian natural gas and oil) sends the signal that "we are not willing to take the slightest amount of pain as cost for the sanctions".  This is a "very bad lesson for China to learn" as they "look at South China Sea, Taiwan and the long frontier with India."

Don't fail to watch the last part of the video where he talks about Trump's treatment of Ukraine ("I think it went very badly.  It is very hard to have a conversation with the President about geo-strategic issues, when his main interest is to send Rudi Guilliani to meet Zelensky so they can find find Hillary Clinton's computer server!").  There is also the shocking claim that Trump wanted to withdraw the US from NATO ("He came very close in his first term and I believe he may well have done it in his second term.  I think Putin was waiting for that.").  It remains to be seen how much pain and resilience the US will show in the coming months to contain Russia.  The country seems very united and resolved at the moment (except for the extreme right wing which idolizes Putin).  But time will tell if the unity and resolve continues.

I am also interested in what all of this means for India.  I have come to view Bolton as a Neo-Con in Dick Cheney's mold, but also friendly towards India.  Read this editorial on need for sharp pivot in American policy towards Pakistan ("Absent clear evidence that Pakistan has terminated assistance to the Taliban, the United States should eliminate its own aid to Islamabad; strike Pakistan from the list of “major non-NATO allies”; impose anti-terrorist sanctions; and more. Our tilt toward India should accelerate.")

See this editorial advising India not to buy S-400 anti-aircraft systems from Russia (this is from last year)

India’s decision to proceed nonetheless reflects a backward-looking dependence on Russia for sophisticated aerospace and weapons technology.

In fact, India’s direction in foreign arms purchases is decidedly unclear. Last week, its ambassador to Russia, Bala Venkatesh Varma, said that “there has been a fundamental change in how our defense relationship has moved in the last three years. Russia has moved back again as the top defense partner of India.” Still worse are reports that, even before the initial S-400 purchases are fully deployed, India and China are considering upgrading to the new S-500 system.

Read that again.  Russia is selling to China the same weapons system that it is selling to India!  It is perfectly rational from Russia's point of view since it might consider neither China nor India is a threat to its interests.  However, is it in India's interest to have same weapons systems as China?  Later in the opinion:

We need not insist that India acquire all its future high-end weapons systems from the U.S., although it would obviously be helpful to see larger purchases than at present. Many Western countries are capable of supplying Indian needs, further highlighting the advantages of breaking the Russian mold. America, Japan, Australia and others also could offer opportunities for defense cooperation with India along the lines of the AUKUS project on nuclear-powered submarines, to enhance India’s own domestic weapons productions.  

Undoubtedly, India needs advanced air defenses. It has long, difficult-to-defend borders with China; Beijing’s growing navy is increasingly menacing, as are Pakistan’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, fostered by China.  

But India’s S-400 purchase, formalized in October 2018, was a mistake, even from its own strategic perspective... Especially unfathomable in why India would acquire the same system China was buying, risking that Beijing’s cyber warriors, perhaps exploiting Moscow-inserted back doors, could cripple their defenses in a crisis.

If we transplant the Ukraine situation to the context of Asia - China has already destroyed the buffer between India and them (Tibet).  We are now sitting eye-ball to eye-ball.  Conflict of some sort seems increasingly likely.  China has historically been a Great Power itself.  It has historically maintained order in its neighborhood by exerting power over its neighbors.  Vietnam and other SE Asian countries are wary of a return to this.  India should be too.  Because of the chaotic Indian democracy, China is unlikely to believe India is it's equal, or even that it is ever likely to be.  This under-estimation may result in it overplaying its hand, causing problems for both China and for India.  Putin has made it clear that when power is so concentrated, one man (or woman) is sufficient to create a problem of this scale.

India and the US have lot of reasons at emotional level to be friends.  Democracy, multi-cultural society and English language being some factors that help.  However, during the Cold War, India made the correct geo-strategic decision to lean (but not align) with the Soviet Union.  Countries that India considered problematic for its national security (Pakistan, China) were in the American camp.  It was prudent for India to look for "friends" elsewhere.

However, the situation has changed.  Russia is too dependent on China.  Once the west decouples from Russian economy, China is going to be Russia's only lifeline.  Geopolitics should not be about things like right and wrong or morality.  The reality is that we live in a dangerous world.  India is finding a measure of security for itself after almost a 1000 years and the Nukes are seeming like a great idea with each passing day (Thank you Vajpayee!).  However, we still need to look out for ourself in a calculating and ruthless way. We have no friends.  We need to save ourselves.  India should ignore its reflexive anti Americanism (Many friends would say for example: "Americans are the cause of the Ukraine crisis - look even Mearsheimer agrees!") and think unemotionally about our own national interest.  It does not lie with Russia - no matter how long Russia has been our friend or how much some Indians may like Putin.

Modi is doing his best right now.  In spite of talking in emotional terms about Friends and such, the real reason India is forced to avoid saying anything against Russia is that Russia can turn off the spares supply at any time making India instantly vulnerable to mischief from Pakistan or China.  In fact, refraining from reacting to Russian shenanigans in Ukraine makes India vulnerable to Chinese claims in Ladakh or Arunachal.  The huge dependence on Russian military hardware and spares is the problem.  We need time to develop alternatives.  But here is the scary part.  Imagine a conflict starts between India and China in the near future.  The Chinese ambassador goes to the Kremlin and requests that Russia cut of spares supply to India and also provide China with codes to compromise India's defense systems like S-400.  Do you think Russia will say "No, I cannot do that because India is our Iron Brother and Friend" or do you think they will say "Sir, Yes Sir!" knowing fully well that Xi's hands are firmly clasped around Putin's balls and can squeeze anytime?  Russia will act in its own best interest, because that is what Great Powers do.  Always have, always will.  Once we accept this, imagine how quaint it sounds when someone says things like "America only acts in its own interest and does not care about anyone else."  Well... in the colorful words of Maa Anand Sheela - "tough titties!".  It is time for India also to watch out for itself.  All of the talk of America Bad, Russia Good (or the reverse) is BS.