Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is hoping that the leaders gathered at the summit will try to pave the way for a future peace process that includes Russia”.
To put pressure on Russia to end its war with Ukraine, World leaders have gathered in Switzerland to attend Ukraine’s peace summit on Saturday. However, Russia and China abstained from the summit, reported The Kyiv Independent.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is hoping that the leaders gathered at the summit will try to pave the way for a future peace process that includes Russia”.
“There are two days of active work ahead with countries from all corners of the world, with different peoples” who are united by the goal of bringing “a just and lasting peace for Ukraine closer,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on June 14 as he arrived in Switzerland.
The peace summit began on June 15 and will conclude on June 16, bringing together representatives from 92 countries and organisations, less than the 107 countries and international organisations that, according to Kyiv, have confirmed their attendance as of early June.
Despite being invited, China skipped the summit after Russia was frozen out of proceedings on the grounds it had dismissed Ukraine’s summit as “futile” and expressed no interest in attending, Al Jazeera reported.
With China’s absence, Western countries’ hope of isolating Russia has faded, while recent military reverses on the battlefield have put Ukrainian forces on the back foot.
Hopefully, according to Ukraine, the Peace Summit will address several key issues, including energy security, the exchange of captives, the return of deported children, and global food security, among other topics, reported The Kyiv Independent.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with Swiss President Viola Amherd.
Zelenskyy added that the summit will enable the global majority to take concrete steps in areas that are important to everyone in the world, including, nuclear and food security, the return of prisoners of war and all deported persons, including deported Ukrainian children.
Meanwhile, US Vice President Kamala Harris and the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan are among those expected to join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the summit.
India, Turkey and Hungary, which maintained friendly relations with Russia, are also expected to join the summit, Al Jazeera reported.
Notably, Saudi Arabia is also one of the countries present at the summit, despite its earlier announcement in June that the country is not planning to attend the summit.
The Ukrainian President made a previously unannounced visit to Saudi Arabia on June 12.
Meanwhile, Brazil, the Holy See, the United Nations, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are attending the summit not as full participants but as observers.
According to the reports, US President Joe Biden will not attend the summit, which eventually prompted Zelenksyy to say that his absence would “only be met by an applause by (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, a personal, standing applause by Putin.”
“I believe that the peace summit needs President Biden, and other leaders need President Biden because they will look at the US’s reaction,” Zelensky said.
However, Biden is unable to attend the summit because it clashes with a campaign fundraiser, Kyiv Independent reported.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the event an important step towards progress.
“Many questions of peace and security will be discussed, but not the very biggest. That was always the plan,” he said, while speaking to Welt TV before travelling to Switzerland.
“This is a small plant that needs to be watered, but of course also with the perspective that more can then come out of it.”
Earlier on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will only put an end to its war in Ukraine if Kyiv surrenders the entire territory of four regions claimed by Moscow and abandons its bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), CNN reported.
Ukraine, however, has rejected Putin’s demand and termed it a “complete sham” and “offensive to common sense.”
Putin’s speech, which came on the eve of the Swiss peace conference, mentioned Russia’s conditions for a “final end” to the war in more granular detail than at any previous time since the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv started in February 2022.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.(Xinhua/Li Xueren/IANS)
The Russian president further called the conference “another ploy to divert everyone’s attention.”
In addition to Ukrainian soldiers withdrawing from four regions, Putin said that Kyiv must demilitarise and that Western nations must lift their sanctions on Russia.
Putin’s demand indicates Russia’s failure to achieve its original war aims, when Moscow believed it could capture Kyiv in days and the rest of Ukraine in weeks, CNN reported.
However, Russia, nearly 28 months later, occupied around a fifth of Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean peninsula it annexed 10 years back. (ANI)
President Putin’s Friday remarks mentioned Russia’s conditions for a “final end” to the war in more granular detail than at any previous time since the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv started in February 2022.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will only put an end to its war in Ukraine if Kyiv surrenders entire territory of four regions claimed by Moscow and abandons its bid to join North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), CNN reported. Ukraine has rejected Putin’s demand and termed it a “complete sham” and “offensive to common sense.”
In his remarks on Friday, Putin mentioned Russia’s conditions for a “final end” to the war in more granular detail than at any previous time since the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv started in February 2022.
Putin’s speech came on the eve of the Swiss peace conference set to be held in Switzerland, where Russia has not been invited. He called the conference “another ploy to divert everyone’s attention.”
In addition to Ukrainian soldiers withdrawing from four regions, Putin said that Kyiv must demilitarise and that Western nations must lift their sanctions on Russia.
Putin’s demand indicate Russia’s failure to achieve its original war aims, when Moscow believed it could capture Kyiv in days and the rest of Ukraine in weeks, CNN reported. However, Russia, nearly 28 months later, occupied around a fifth of Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean peninsula it annexed 10 years back.
In comments to the foreign ministry, Putin termed Russia’s conditions for peace talks “simple,” starting with the total withdrawal of Ukraine’s soldiers from the entire territory of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Russia only controls these regions partially but it had claimed the whole of four regions as part of the Russia’s territory in 2022.
Putin said that Ukraine should surrender not jut the territory on the Russian side of the frontline but the “entire territory of these regions.”
The Russian President said, “As soon as they declare in Kyiv that they are ready for such a decision and begin the real withdrawal of troops from these regions – and also officially notify about the abandonment of plans to join NATO – our side will immediately, at the same minute, make the order to cease fire and begin negotiations,” CNN reported.
Putin promised to “guarantee the unhindered and safe withdrawal of Ukrainian units and formations.” He stated that Russia acknowledges its role in global stability and stressed that his terms for ending the war in Ukraine would need to be cemented in international agreements.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine “does not trust” Putin’s “ultimatum,” which he said did not significantly differ from offers he has made before, CNN reported.
In his remarks at the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Italy, Zelenskyy spoke about similarities between Putin’s tactics and those used by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler to conquer swaths of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, as per the CNN report.
Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak urged Ukraine’s allies to “get rid of illusions” and to stop taking Russia’s offers seriously, terming Putin’s terms as “offensive to common sense.”
Podolyak said, “There is no novelty in this, no real peace proposals and no desire to end the war. But there is a desire not to pay for this war and to continue it in new formats. It’s all a complete sham.” (ANI)
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for permission to use US weapons on Russian territory but was currently denied by the US to avoid further escalation.
Kiev is at a disadvantage in its defence against Russian forces due to restrictions on using US weapons against targets on Russian soil, according to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
The latest report from the US think-tank released on Friday says that Russia exploits these restrictions by launching attacks from protected areas near the Ukrainian border.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for permission to use US weapons on Russian territory but was currently denied by the US to avoid further escalation.
The US approach to date has severely limited Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian attacks in the north of the Kharkiv region, it said.
According to the Pentagon, the US is providing the weapons so that Ukraine can liberate its occupied territories, but not for attacks on Russia.
Ukraine’s goal is to attack bases in Russia with Western weapons to destroy them even more effectively than with its own less powerful drones and missiles.
Russia, on the other hand, is warning of an escalation in the war if weapons from NATO countries are used against them.
Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base.
The USD 6 billion military aid is the largest security assistance package that the US has committed to date
United States has announced an additional aid of USD 6 billion to Ukraine, which will enable for procurement of weapons, including critical interceptors Patriot and NASAMS (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) air defence systems, the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Saturday.
The additional commitment of USD 6 billion through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) will allow for the procurement of new capabilities for Ukraine from US industry, Austin said.
“This is the largest security assistance package that we’ve committed to date,” Austin told a news conference at the Pentagon, adding that the US would “move immediately” to get the supplies to Ukraine.
The USAI aid package also includes counter-drone systems and support equipment; significant amounts of artillery ammunition and air-to-ground munitions; and maintenance and sustainment support.
The USD 6 billion is part of a USD 60 billion aid package signed into law by US President Joe Biden on Wednesday, which also includes USD1 billion in more immediate aid, Austin said.
The Department of Defence (DoD) announced that the “historic new security assistance package” will address Ukraine’s ongoing battlefield needs and demonstrate unwavering US support for Ukraine.
Launch of a MIM-104 Patriot missile.
Austin and Air Force General Charles Q Brown Jr, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the press conference following a virtual meeting of the 21st Ukraine Defence Contact Group which saw the participation of Ukranian Minister of Defence Umerov and General Syrskyi.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the start of the virtual meeting and sought more air defence systems to be sent to Kyiv to help protest against Russian strikes.
Austin said that he had convened the Ukraine Defence Contact Group for the first time at Ramstein Air Base exactly two years ago. The group comprising some 50 members of allies and partners from around the world, marshals military assistance for Ukraine.
Contact group members have committed more than USD 95 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, the US Defence Secretary said.
“Over the past two years, the members of this Contact Group have committed more than 70 mid- to long range air-defense systems, along with thousands of missiles. We’ve provided more than 3,000 armoured vehicles, including more than 800 main battle tanks. We’ve given Ukraine tens of thousands of anti-tank missiles. This year, more than a squadron of donated F-16s will start to arrive in Ukraine, along with pilots and maintainers trained by members of this Contact Group,” Austin said as per a Pentagon readout of the remarks made by Austin at the opening of the 21st Ukraine Defence Contact Group.
The US Defence Secretary noted Czech Republic’s “extraordinary initiative” to procure thousands of artillery shells from third countries for Ukraine. “And the UK has announced its largest single package of equipment ever, worth approximately USD 620 million. Or consider Germany’s bold announcement that it will donate another Patriot system to Ukraine,” he said.
The Ukraine Defense Contact Group is proud of the critical capabilities that we have committed to Ukraine.
The U.S. also made major announcements this week to provide new security assistance for Ukraine, including the national security supplemental and a new USAI package. pic.twitter.com/UCrF7Bx3TP
— Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) April 26, 2024
“Ukraine is in dire need of more air-defence systems. And it urgently needs more interceptors. That’s going to be a huge priority for us all today. Ukraine also needs more artillery and armour to defend its citizens and reclaim its stolen territory,” Austin said.
Responding to a reporter’s query Austin said, “I would point out that it’s not just Patriot, that you know, they need. They need other types of systems and interceptors, as well. And so I would caution us all in terms of making Patriot the silver bullet. I would say that it’s going to be the integrated air and missile defence, as we’ve said so many times before, that really turns the tide. And so there are other capabilities that they need that — that we really pushed hard to get, and we may be able to the Ukrainians a bit faster.”
Urging allies to deter Russia from further aggression, the US Defence Secretary said, “If Ukraine fell under Putin’s boot, Europe would fall under Putin’s shadow.”
USAI is an authority under which the United States procures capabilities from US industry or partners.
“So the announcements this week underscore America’s enduring commitment to Ukraine’s defence. I’m also proud of all the capabilities that our allies and partners have provided to Ukraine. Our contact group partners have contributed most of the counter-UAS systems provided to Ukraine and most of the 155-millimeter artillery systems, most of the tanks, most of the armoured personnel carriers, most of the infantry fighting vehicles and more,” Austin said. (ANI)
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (L, Center) and Zhang Youxia (R, Center), a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, inspect the guard of honor in Moscow, Russia, on Sept. 4, 2019. Chinese and Russian senior military officials have agreed to strengthen military cooperation between the two countries to jointly maintain global peace and stability. (Photo by Li Xiaowei/Xinhua/IANS)
An official from the Joe Biden administration reportedly claimed that the Chinese and Russian entitles have also been working jointly to produce drones inside of Russia.
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, China is helping Russia ramp up its defence industrial base at such a large scale that Moscow is now undertaking its most ambitious expansion in military manufacturing since the Soviet era, CNN reported, citing senior Biden administration officials.
One of the official claimed that the Chinese and Russian entitles have also been working jointly to produce drones inside of Russia.
The support from China is having a significant impact on Russia’s ability to continue its assault on Ukraine, while Ukraine’s military has been plagued with equipment and weapon shortages. The challenge for Ukraine is exacerbated by Republicans in the US Congress continuing to block a vote on a new American military aid package to Kyiv.
“One of the most game changing moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC (People’s Republic of China) to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base. Russia would struggle to sustain its war effort without PRC inputs,” said a senior administration official, adding that Chinese “materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle,” CNN reported.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) shakes hands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during their meeting in New York. (File Pic: Xinhua/Han Fang/IANS)
According to the report, this week Gen. Chris Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, told lawmakers that Russia has been “quite successful” at reconstituting its military since it invaded Ukraine more than 2 years ago, and its capacity has largely “grown back” to what it was before the invasion. US officials are now making clear that China is largely responsible for that rapid build-up.
As a demonstration of this deepening China-Russia partnership: in 2023, 90 per cent of Russia’s micro-electronics imports came from China, which Russia has used to produce missiles, tanks, and aircraft, a second official said.
Russia’s rapidly expanding production of artillery rounds is due, in large part, to the nitrocellulose coming from China, officials said. This comes as Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, CNN reported earlier this year.
Beyond the defence hardware, China is helping Russia to improve its satellite and other space based capabilities for use in Ukraine, and providing imagery to Russia for its war on Ukraine, the officials said.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin sign the statements on elevating bilateral ties to the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in Moscow, Russia, June 5, 2019. (Xinhua/Li Xueren/IANS)
Some of this information comes from downgraded US intelligence, officials said.
The support from China is compensating for the significant setbacks that Russia’s defense industry experienced early in the Ukraine war due to US sanctions and export controls.
President Joe Biden raised concerns about China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base in a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping earlier this month, following other officials repeatedly raising the concerns with their Chinese counterparts, officials said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken also raised the matter with US allies during his recent Europe trip, the officials said. The US has not seen any interruption to the ongoing Chinese support since that Biden-Xi phone call, though sometimes it takes time to see changes come to fruition.
China continues to steer clear of providing Russia with lethal weaponry, which the US has warned against since the beginning of the Ukraine war, but in many cases, the inputs can be just as impactful as lethal weaponry, CNN reported.
US officials said it is imperative for the US and its allies to persuade China to stop this practice, though success will be hard to measure. Earlier this year Xi heralded a new year of growing coordination with Russia during a call with President Vladimir Putin.
Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen delivered China a warning of ‘significant consequences’ if Chinese companies provide support to Russia for the Ukraine war during her trip to the country.
CNN said in its report that the Biden administration also issued an executive order targeting third country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base and following that action, the US has been touch with banks around the world to build up compliance systems to avoid inadvertently being caught up in this trade, which would result in US sanctions. (ANI)
Moscow : Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of State Council via a video conference at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia on Tuesday, July 04, 2023.(Photo:IANS/Kremlin)
President Putin noted that Moscow is in favour of resuming negotiations, but such talks must not be aimed at “imposing any schemes that have nothing to do with reality”, reports Asian Lite News
Russian President Vladimir Putin has confirmed his readiness for dialogue with Ukraine, and that an aborted 2022 peace deal could serve as the basis for resuming the negotiation, Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
In a meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Thursday, Putin noted that Moscow is in favour of resuming negotiations, but such talks must not be aimed at “imposing any schemes that have nothing to do with reality”.
Vladimir Putin held a meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in the Kremlin.
Peskov on Friday added that the “Istanbul agreements,” a draft peace pact reached in March 2022 between Russia and Ukraine, could serve as the basis for resuming talks, despite that there have been many changes since then, Xinhua news agency reported.
He said the Kremlin does not feel the Ukrainian side is ready for negotiations with Russia.
“The latest status of contacts on the continuation of the [Black Sea Grain] initiative and the search for lasting peace in the region” topped the agenda of their meeting
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky here to discuss the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the Turkish presidency said.
The two leaders addressed the latest developments about resuming the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which has been suspended since last July, the office said on Friday on its website as quoted by Xinhua news agency report.
“The latest status of contacts on the continuation of the initiative and the search for lasting peace in the region” topped the agenda of their meeting, according to the office.
The United Nations and Turkey brokered the initiative between Russia and Ukraine, establishing a humanitarian maritime corridor for ships transporting food and fertiliser exports from Ukrainian Black Sea ports in July 2022.
According to the presidency, the two leaders convened at the Dolmabahce Palace in Istanbul at 7 p.m. local time and held a press conference afterward.
While primarily targeting Russians and Russian entities, US and EU sanctions also included mainland Chinese individuals and firms, including those in Hong Kong, for aiding the Russian military.
The sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union on Friday, against several people and companies for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine also included several companies from China, the Voice of America (VOA) reported.
Although most of the sanctions were against Russians and Russian firms, the US and EU measures also included Chinese individuals and companies based in mainland Chinese cities as well as Hong Kong for supplying the Russian military.
Moreover, they also included sanctions against Russian prison officials over the suspicious death of opposition leader Alexey Navalny.
Russia’s foreign ministry denounced the sanctions as “illegal” and said it would respond by banning some EU citizens who provided military assistance to Ukraine from entering Russia, according to VOA.
Chinese officials did not issue an immediate response to the sanctions.
However, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, commented on the expected sanctions on Tuesday at a regular briefing and said China follows an “objective and impartial position on the Ukraine crisis” and has “worked actively to promote peace talks.”
She further said that they “have not sat idly by, still less exploited the situation for selfish gains.”
China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning (Screengrab from X)
Moreover, Ukrainian officials and media reports have also accused Chinese companies of supplying key electronics and dual-use technologies, including drone components, to Russia’s military since its invasion of Ukraine two years ago. However, Beijing has denied their claim, according to VOA.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen preempted Friday’s official announcement on social media, stating, “I welcome the agreement on our 13th sanctions package against Russia. We must keep degrading Putin’s war machine. With 2000 listings in total, we keep the pressure high on the Kremlin. We are also further cutting Russia’s access to drones.”
Reportedly, the sanctioned individuals and companies are banned from doing business with US or European firms.
However, legal and political analysts disagreed on the effectiveness of the sanctions.
Lawyer Mark Handley, a partner at the Philadelphia-headquartered law firm Duane Morris LLP, said being sanctioned will certainly affect their international business. “Things like international insurance companies or shipping could get very complicated once they are on the sanctions list.”
However, Pieter Cleppe, editor-in-chief for BrusselsReport.eu, told VOA, “Historical research has shown that sanctions mostly fail, especially when prolonged, as is the case with Russia. The targeted country learns to cope with them.”
He added, “While sanctions may impoverish ordinary Russians, they have failed to halt the Russian offensive, which should be the goal.”
The Yermak-McFaul International Working Group on Russian Sanctions and the Ukrainian think tank KSE Institute published a report in January, showing that sanctioned technology has still been reaching Russia’s military through third-country intermediaries, which the EU and the US hope the fresh measures will stop.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.(photo;twitter.com/vonderleyen)
Junhua Zhang, senior assistant researcher at the Brussels-based European Institute for Asian Studies, said the EU’s highest expectation “is for China to align with the EU in resisting Russia’s aggression, which is unrealistic. The EU’s minimum expectation is for Chinese companies not to work for Russia, but strictly speaking, only fools would have such an expectation.”
“Just consider (Chinese President) Xi Jinping sees Putin as his best friend, and those below him will act accordingly, a point that Europeans also recognize,” Zhang added, as reported by VOA.
However, others argued that sanctions on Chinese firms could push Beijing to reconsider.
Aliona Hlivco, a former Ukrainian lawmaker and managing director at the London-based think tank the Henry Jackson Society, said that sanctions against Chinese companies could prove useful in deterring Russia’s war on Ukraine.
“China is currently attempting to improve relations with the West, so reinforcing China’s compliance with international norms could be opportune,” Hlivco said.
It is pertinent to mention that the EU is China’s second-largest trading bloc partner after the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
In 2023, while Russia lost most of its European market owing to the sanctions, the bilateral trade between China and Russia hit a record high of USD 240 billion, a year-on-year increase of 26.3 per cent, VOA reported.
However, trade between the US and China in 2023 fell for the first time since 2019 by 11 per cent to USD 664 billion, according to customs data.
According to the Commerce Department, the US imported more goods from Mexico than China for the first time in 20 years. (ANI)
The air raid in Kyiv lasted for nearly two hours, but air defences successfully intercepted all missiles heading towards the Ukrainian capital
In the resumption of hostilities, Russia fired a barrage of cruise missiles at Ukrainian targets early on Friday morning, marking the end of an almost 80-day pause, CNN reported, citing Ukrainian officials.
The air raid in Kyiv lasted for nearly two hours, but air defences successfully intercepted all missiles heading towards the capital, said Serhii Popko, head of the Kyiv city military administration. Although some homes in Kyiv suffered damage from “downed enemy targets,” the Ukrainian Interior Ministry said.
A missile striking Pavlohrad in Ukraine’s central Dnipropetrovsk region resulted in one fatality and four injuries, as announced by Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, according to CNN.
Meanwhile, in the eastern Kharkiv region, overnight strikes claimed one life and left several others injured. Damage was reported in Kupiansk district and Kharkiv city, including a damaged residential building and numerous affected apartments and cars.
According to Oleh Syniehubov, head of the Kharkiv region’s military administration, Russia targeted Kharkiv with six S-300 missiles, prompting an investigation by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office.
The missile barrage, consisting of 19 missiles across Ukraine, marked the first such attack in over two months. Western intelligence assessments had warned of a potential escalation in Russia’s bombardment of civilian infrastructure during the winter.
File pic shows smoke rising in the sky in Kiev, Ukraine. (Xinhua/Lu Jinbo/IANS)
Of the 19 missiles launched, 14 were reportedly destroyed in the Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions, according to Yurii Ihnat, spokesman for the Ukrainian Air Force Command, as reported by CNN.
“After a long pause of 79 days, the enemy resumed attacks with cruise missiles launched by Tu-95MS strategic aircraft. Preliminarily, approximately 10 bomber missile carriers fired cruise missiles of the Kh-101/555/55 type from the Engels city area, Saratov region,” stated Popko on Telegram.
The last significant cruise missile attack on Ukraine occurred on September 21, with 43 missiles launched and 36 intercepted, as per Air Force Command’s official Telegram account. In November, Russia launched a major drone attack with 75 Iranian-made Shahed drones, followed by another 48 Shaheds on Wednesday.
Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence Deputy Chief Vadym Skibitsky had forewarned in November that Russia might deploy a combination of missiles and drones to target Ukrainian infrastructure during the winter. Despite improved Ukrainian defences this winter, Skibitsky cautioned that Russia’s strikes would be more sophisticated than last year’s primitive attacks, CNN reported. (ANI)
Oleksandr Svitych is an Associate Professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs. His research interests lie at the intersection of political economy, critical theory, and political philosophy. Oleksandr was born and raised in Ukraine. He pursued higher education in Ukraine, Hungary, and Singapore. Prior to moving to India, he worked in the development sector for a Danish NGO in the Ukraine’s Donbas region. While there, he also ran a taekwon-do club for the local kids of his hometown Sloviansk. While Oleksandr has developed a cosmopolitan outlook, he remains firmly rooted in his homeland. In a bit of serendipity, he happened to move to India just a few days before Russia invaded his country.Besides social sciences, Oleksandr finds meaning in martial arts, philosophy, and his family. They reside in Sonipat, Haryana. In this interview with ABHISH K. BOSE, he discusses the Russia – Ukraine war and the damages of it in the economy of the countries and other related developments.
Excerpts from the interview
Abhish K. Bose: In the book “The Rise of the Capital-state and Neo-Nationalism: A New Polaniyan Moment” you argue that populist nationalism emerged as a reaction to the pro-market structural changes in the political economies of nation-states. You claim that there is a link between free market reforms, declining state legitimacy, and identity-based mobilization. You also saythat discontented voters are pulled toward populist nationaliststo cope with their insecurities generated by the state restructuring. How did these dynamics play out in the case of India? Is this how BJP rose to power in 2014 and 2019?
Svitich: In the book, I draw on the ideas of the Austro-Hungarian political economist Karl Polanyi from his famous book The Great Transformation. Polanyi made several important insights on the relationship between the state, market, and society, backing his claims with rich amount of anthropological and historical evidence. Firstly, there is no such thing as the complete “free market.” The market needs concrete institutional and legal arrangements for it to operate, which historically have been provided by the state. Secondly, the market economy is only one possibility for organizing human activity, albeit it has crowded out other alternatives. In contrast to classical economists, there is nothing natural or “rational”about the desire to barter or strive for profit. Humans can be productive through other motivations, such as social recognition, social standing, occupational pride, or a sense of solidarity. Thirdly, state attempts to promote the free market generate strains in society and lead to counter-movements to protect people’s livelihoods from the market forces. These observations are especially pertinent in the era of neoliberal globalization that we are living in today. In the book, I explore how these dynamics played out in different national contexts and generated populist nationalism – both on the Right and the Left of the political spectrum – as a form of Polanyian counter-movement.
Regarding the case of India, my cautious estimation is that a similar framework can be applied yet it must accommodate the specificities of the Indian society, politics, and culture. In fact, quite a number of researchers have applied Polanyi’s ideasto the Indian context. Some focused on the neoliberal restructuring of the Indian state since the 1990s as an example of Polanyian “great transformation.” Others analyzed a myriad of counter-movements – both at the grassroots and state levels – that these changes generated, ranging from fights to reclaim the land, to labour movements, to farmers’ protests, to environmental campaigns, and so on. Yet others charted the links between the structural changes in the Indian political economy and the rise of right-wing populism, most notably exemplified by the Bharatiya Janata Party.There’s a lot of excellent work on these themes done by scholars like Ajay Gudavarthy, Ashoka Mody, Christophe Jaffrelot, Partha Chatterjee, Rahul Verma, and Sarbeswar Sahoo, to name a few.
There’s a consensus among academics to classify BJP as a “populist” party despite different interpretations of the term “populism.”What is unique about this case is that it illustrates how populism can be combined with religious nationalism to offer an irresistible cocktail for voters. My intuition is that political economy indeed contributed to the electoral success and persistence of BJP. There’s certainly a correlation between liberalisation of the Indian economy and the appeal of BJP’s message to the public. The class politics are alive and well in the Indian society. At the same time, India’s distinct institutional legacies must be factored in – post-colonialism, the role of caste, and statism, for instance. In addition, India has come up withvarious responses to neoliberalization of its economy and society, sometimes quite creative ones.I would therefore refrain from drawing a direct connection between state transformation and neo-nationalism, especially that more data are needed. And yet the general tendencies, on the surface, are remarkably similar to what we observe elsewhere across the globe. In other words, there is roomboth for similarity and contextual specificity in the Indian case.
Q. The war in Ukraine has devastated the country, isolated Russia from the West, and fuelled economic insecurity around the world. The embargoes and sanctions have affected Russian oil trade. Could you assess the financial burden the war brought onto the people of Russia and how it affected their standards of living, including health, education and food? What is your projection for future?
I am not an economist by training, and thus cannot estimate with precision the impact of Russia’ criminal war against Ukraine onto Russian citizens.And all future projections are futile, of course. I am much more informed about the situation in Ukraine. However, based on the information that I receive both from the Russian sources (by virtue of knowing the language) and foreign ones, the Russian economy does not perform well. This should not come as a surprise as the war disrupted Russia’s economic, business and financial ties with the world, as you pointed out, and put pressure on people’s ability to make both ends meet. Still, I’d like to balance this narrative by several crucial observations.
Firstly, there’s enough evidence that Russia is managing to manoeuvre its way around the sanctions regime, albeit not entirely. This is done via either trade and military ties with China and Iran, for instance (and probably will be done via the expanded BRICS club), or intermediary companies to bypass sanctions, or smuggling activities as in Kazakhstan. Secondly, some Russians have certainly benefited from the war, materially speaking. And here I am less interested in the Russian oligarchs whose wealth mushroomed through military contracts with the state. I am talking about the Russian soldiers who choose to fight in Ukraine in the hope to reap lucrative bonuses from the state – and pay off their mortgages. This is a sort of a Russian roulette: you either die or get rich. Thirdly, we should not underestimate the effect of Russia’s obscene propaganda which targets the audiences both at home and abroad. Domestically, the narratives of “national greatness,” “fighting Nazis,” and “defending Russian values” obfuscate economic hardships. This combination of material and symbolic rewards is an explosive mix that helps sustain loyalty to the Putin regime.
Finally, the foreign aspect of Russia’s propaganda and disinformation campaigns is related to your first question on populist nationalism. I disagree with researchers who describe Putin as “populist” in the period before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He is and was part and parcel of the elite, which is the complete opposite of being a populist who blames the elites for leaving the people behind. Now, however, I think Putin can be described as a transnational populist as part of his overall political persona. He taps skillfully into the anti-western and de-colonial sentiments in the countries of the so-called Global South. It is ironic how an authoritarian and an imperialist like Putin flirts with leftist ideas of anti-colonialism and anti-neoliberalism. Unfortunately, his narrative – propagated by Russia’s propaganda machine –does seem to gain traction among former colonies, including India. What needs to be remembered, however, is that Russia is one of the most neoliberal and unequal countries in the world, while Ukraine has been on the receiving end of its imperialist politics for decades, if not centuries.
After the flower-laying ceremony on National Unity Day, Vladimir Putin speaks with representatives of civil society and youth organisations. (Photo via Kremlin)
Q. According to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2022 was a bad year for the Russian economy. It is estimated that in 2022, Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 2.1%. Russia’s economy may continue to shrink in 2023. Its GDP is forecast to decline by 2.5% in the worst-case scenario (OECD) or by 0.2% according to the World Bank. Going by the statistics,the economy is going down. Do you agree with this assessment?
I think my response to the previous question largely covers this. I will add that we need to be cautious with “objective” assessments like these ones as they do not, and cannot, completely reflect realities on the ground. Overall, I think it’s prudent to take a middle stance between two extreme positions: the inevitable collapse of Russia’s economy and, vice versa, the infinite strength of its regime.
Q. What was the driving force behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine? What was the political advantage Putin and the Russian elites envisioned when they ordered the aggression? Do you think they overestimated its benefits?
In the question of the driving force behind the invasion, I have tried to cover it elsewhere for the Indian audience, so I will largely and briefly repeat myself. I have also already touched upon this in the previous questions. The main reason for the invasion is Russia’s aggressive imperialism. In fact, Putin has been quite explicit about this, comparing himself to the Russian historic figures like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great who “collected lands.” His pseudo-historical essay on the eve of the invasion makes it abundantly clear that Putin, in the good old KGB tradition, is paranoid about the so-called “project Anti-Russia.” This, in his erroneous view, justifies bullying its sovereign and peaceful neighbours.
Putin has denied the existence and identity of Ukraine for years, treating it as his “sphere of influence” and interfering into Ukraine’s domestic politics long before the country officially adopted pro-EU and pro-NATO trajectories. This is why he was so adamant to blame Lenin, by the way: for him Lenin had committed a grave error by allowing a degree of national self-determination for the Soviet republics. All Russia’s criminal policies in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine seek to erase all traces of the Ukrainian identity – by abducting children, forcing the Russian language, giving away Russian passports, or torturing dissenting locals. This is provided they had not been killed earlier by Russian rockets, missiles, bombs, and drones.
A repeated claim I keep hearing from some researchers, students, and Indian common people, such as taxi drivers or street vendors, is that this is a proxy war between Russia and the US, or Russia and NATO. India’s political establishment seems to share this view, at least rhetorically. More ironically, the overwhelming majority of Indian leftists, including prominent figures like Arundhati Roy, do the same.This is a flawed and a very dangerous stance. Empirically speaking, there’s plenty of evidence that Russia’s alleged security concerns about NATO expansion were not the reason behind the invasion. To mention just one, the 2022 escalation, to remind the readers, was preceded by an 8-year-long Russia-ignited war in the Donbass and the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. These, in turn, were justified by Putin as a reaction to the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity which ousted pro-Russian president Yanukovych and, in Putin’s view, was nothing but a U.S. orchestrated coup d’état.
The Russia-NATO argument is not only wrong, but is also politically dangerous for several reasons. It denies the agency of Ukraine and Ukrainians. It ignores the fact that empires do not come only from the West. And it fans anti-western and NATO-sentiments instead of mobilizing solidarity with the oppressed Ukrainian people.
Q. Is Russia getting any monetary or other support from any country in the wake of sanctions against it?
I’m not aware of any direct financial support. And if there is one (for instance, from China), the Russian state will do its best to conceal this information from public. Other examples are better known, like receiving military assistance from Iran and North Korea. Also, while China does not openly supply weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, it may be secretly selling some components. Finally, in my view, the recent expansion of the BRICS club should be viewed as another opportunity for Russia to steer away from the sanctions regime.
Q. The Russia-Ukraine war has passed six hundred days. As a Ukrainian academic, what do you think will be the lasting vestiges of the war and its ramifications in theUkrainian and Russian economies? How long will it take for both the economies to resuscitate from the damages?
I am a Ukrainian academic by birth but not by affiliation. That said, of course I remain very must invested emotionally and morally into my own country. If you permit, I’ll shift the focus away from the economy (except one comment in the end) as we’ve talked quite a bit about it. Other vestiges of the war will reverberate for years and decades to come: colossal damage to Ukrainians in terms of lost lives, displaced people, destroyed infrastructure, contaminated territory (Ukraine hasthe biggest number of landmines in the world), and polluted environment. And these are just the material effects. On a bit more optimistic note, the war has forged and consolidated Ukrainian national identity. It is also an opportunity to steer the country’s socio-economic development in a more socially just manner. This will become especially important as Ukraine embarks on the path of reconstruction upon. In this regard, there are some important advocacy campaigns and proposals launched by the Ukrainian leftists, such as cancellation of the foreign debt, which I totally support.On the international scale, the war will be a reminder of the fragility about the global security architecture and the need to reform the UN Security Council. It will be also a stark warning about the dangers of “whataboutism” where, in a twisted manner, references to the injustices conducted by powerful nations in the past (such as the US) can be used strategically to fuel the sense of imperial nostalgia, status frustration, andnational greatnessby others (such as Russia).
(Image shared by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine.)
Q. India has apparently initiated a shift in its foreign policy by favouring Israel instead of Palestine in the Israel-Hamas war. Is this a shift from the country’s conventional foreign policy stand and the stanceit adopted for the purpose of realpolitik? Is this the appropriate stance?
By “shift” you must be referring to India’s abstention to condemnunequivocally Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There are several reasons why India has taken a clearer stance on the Israel-Hamas war. India still wants to see itself as an ally of the US, which is Israel’s key partner. There is a sizeable Indian diaspora in Israel. Also, condemning the terrorist Hamas is in line with the Indian government’s tough stance on terrorism allegedly emanating from the training camps in Pakistan. Lastly, as highlighted repeatedly in the media, there is a personal affinity between Narendra Modi and Benjamin Netanyahu. In my opinion, the source of this affinity is ideological and comes from similar right-wing majoritarian politics.At the same time, if India clams to be the voice of the Global South, as it has tried to be, it must remember to acknowledge the voice of Palestine in the longer Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Q.What do you think about the future of the Russia-Ukraine confrontation? How long will it last according to your perspective?
I’ll be very laconic here. The war will end with Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat.
