Gaza: Refocusing global attention

Hamas’s attack on Gaza on October 7 and the consequent, and continuing, Israeli response has diverted international attention from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine which began on February 24 last year. As it is, it is impossible to sustain global focus on a single issue, howsoever significant it may be for the maintenance of international peace and security, for an indefinite period. This is so with the Ukraine war too.

Once the initial shock of the Russian action on European security and global energy, food and fertilizer supplies were more or less absorbed, international sight was shifting to the over-arching issue of our times –the contest between a rising and assertive China and the United States. In addition, extreme climate events last year as well as this year also continued to cause anxiety. This was not un-natural because the impact of climate change constitutes the real challenge for humankind. While all this was taking place over the past months, Hamas’s attack has truly refocused attention. This is also demonstrated in the Joint Statement issued after the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Japan on October 8. This is so, even if the Ministers have, in the statement reiterated their countries’ pledge to continue to support Ukraine and never to accept what Russia has done in Ukraine.

Before turning to the G7 Ministers statement’s portion on Ukraine it would be useful to put it in the context of the ground situation and developments in the Ukraine war since it began. The initial Russian ground attack on central Ukraine failed. Whatever Russia may say, its objective was clearly to either surround Kiev or control the Ukrainian capital and large parts of the central areas of the country. President Vladimir Putin had also calculated that the Ukrainian people would not be able to accept the suffering caused by the war and would seek to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration with one which would be able to make peace with Russia. This was a great miscalculation.

The Russian attack evoked Ukrainian nationalism and the country rallied around Zelenskyy. In addition, the Western powers could not allow Putin’s ambition in Ukraine to go unanswered; it damaged the entire structure of European security carefully built after the Cold War.  There is no doubt that the US reneged on informal understandings given to the Soviet leadership when it accepted Germany’s reunification. The crux of these assurances was that NATO would not be expanded eastwards. However, it did. For Putin, NATO’s expansion was not only a violation of solemn assurances but it also constituted a threat to Russian security. He drew a line on Ukraine’s entry either into the European Union or NATO.  Instead of giving a clear assurance to Russia that this would not take place the US and its European allies stressed on every country’s right to make sovereign, independent choices.  Thus, while Putin had cause for a grievance yet the blatant aggression which he launched against Ukraine could not be justified.

Now, the war has reached a stalemate. Russian forces occupy considerable portions of eastern and southern Ukraine. The front lines may change occasionally but there seems no possibility that Ukraine, despite all the material and weapons assistance it is receiving, is in a position to throw out Russian forces out of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. There is little doubt that US assistance will continue even though the Biden administration will have to work the US Congress to approve the US$ 11.8 billion Ukraine assistance package which it has proposed. US Treasury and Defence Secretaries as well as the Secretary of State and the Head of US AID, in a joint letter to the Congress of November 7 noted, inter alia, “This aggression is not only an existential threat to Ukraine, but also a threat to global democracies and our own economic and national security”. While US aid to Ukraine will flow it can only prevent Russia from making further decisive inroads into Ukraine. What has also made the Ukraine situation truly intractable is the Russian decision of September 2022 to make Luhansk, Kherson, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia as sovereign Russian territory.

It is noteworthy that the G7 Foreign Ministers relegated the Ukraine situation to the second place in their Joint Statement. The first was assigned to the Hamas’s attack and the Israeli response. The five paragraphs on the Russian aggression contain the usual condemnation of its action and commitments of support to Ukraine. It also reiterates the G7 determination to impose greater sanctions against Russia and is critical of Russian actions to revoke its ratification of the CTBT. Amidst all this, the G7 ministers have taken care not to give the impression that they are willing to give Ukraine the weaponry which can really inflict damage on internationally recognized Russian territory. Hence, Russia will take G7 cautions in its stride. However, what the countries like India will have to pay attention to is the warning “We reiterate our call to third parties to immediately cease providing material support to Russia’s aggression, or face severe costs. In order to reduce the revenues that Russia extracts from its exports, we will accelerate our consultations on energy, metals and all non-industrial diamonds, including those mined, processed or produced in Russia”. Indian officials will have to access the impact of this warning on the country’s interests. Till now India has taken the correct view that its relations with Russia are in accordance with its national interests and that it will not allow others to intervene in the Indo-Russian relationship. That decision should continue accompanied with dexterous diplomacy and a realization that international focus has shifted to the Israel-Palestine front.