In the third year of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, following a failed attempt at peace negotiations in Istanbul, there have been several proposals for how the conflict could be mediated. Proponents of a peace deal are becoming more vocal as it has become clear that it slides down to the war of attrition and the conflict cannot be easily won on the battlefield by either side. BRICS members—China, Brazil, and recently, India—expressed their will to play a role in conflict negotiation. In contrast to the Chinese and Brazilian proposals, which Ukraine vehemently rejected, calling them “destructive,” Indian mediation is being received more warmly by both parties. There are several reasons why Indian mediation could be more productive in conflict resolution.
The first reason why India is more acceptable as a negotiator is that it is perceived as an independent player. Perception of “pro-Russian” biases that China, Brazil, or Hungary may have made them unacceptable for Ukraine. Moreover, public pronouncements of possible starting points of negotiations made by China and Brazil irritated Ukraine, as it was allegedly not consulted beforehand. Furthermore, it is also believed that Ukraine does not see China or Brazil as neutral parties. During the conflict, Ukraine sticks to the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Thus, any proposal made without prior consultation is going to be rejected. On the contrary, India has been quite discreet about what a future peace plan could include. In the most recent meeting between Russian President Putin and National Security Advisor of the Republic of India Ajit Kumar Doval, it was confirmed that Indian negotiations with the parties are strictly confidential. As Ajit Kumar Doval said in a meeting with Putin, the talks with Ukraine were in a closed format with only two leaders, and several other people were present, including the speaker.
Indian position in the international power conjuncture makes it a powerful negotiator who would be able to keep equal grounds with the parties of the conflict. Being a BRICS member and a strategic partner of both Russia and the US could make India a key player in the negotiation process. While Ukraine and Russia have been on the spot in the negotiation deals, the role of the US in the conflict has been so far overlooked. The Ukrainian army and government in power heavily rely on American military and financial support. Therefore, either publicly or in secret, the US interests in terminating its support to Ukraine and therefore the conflict will be taken into account. The possible election of Donald Trump to his second term in office may undermine future aid to Ukraine. It is the reason why the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, insists on a summit in India before the decisive November.
Being the largest democracy that safeguards the values of the Non-Alignment Movement, India could provide a good example for Ukraine in solving one of the most contentious issues—Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership. One of Ukraine’s arguments for joining NATO is identity-based: NATO is a security community of democratic states. As such, Ukraine is striving for security that leads to democratic stability and prosperity. India may prove to Ukraine that being democratic and non-aligned is also a viable option. Moreover, since 2014 Ukraine has presented the conflict with Russia as a part of its post-colonial struggle, it may look up to India in its history of post-colonial relations and domestic language policies.
For India, taking an active role is important to strengthen its position in the community of nation-states as well as to find a balance between its own ambitions of getting close to Russia and the US. India has been a traditional ally of Russia (previously the Soviet Union), and recently it has started to show its closeness with the Western block as well (given the fact that the rise of China has been seen as a threat by many nations, and India has already had several border clashes with China in the recent past). India also seeks to get a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, which Ukraine also finds suitable now. Notable here is the fact that the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Russia (criticised by Zelensky and many commentators) was followed by his trip to Austria, and then he visited Ukraine. Modi did not forget to hug Zelensky multiple times, as his ‘open arms diplomacy’ with Russia was being targeted. All this may sound irrelevant to many, but from a cultural standpoint, only close friends hug each other in the multilingual South Asian country.
The most important thing in peace negotiations in such a polarising conflict is to save the faces of all participants, as has been highlighted by many. However, with heavy losses and multiple casualties on both sides, neither Russia nor Ukraine may call a complete victory when this conflict ends. By keeping low-profile talks, India could establish the basis of the future peace deal. They say, “Happiness loves silence,” and so does conflict resolution between Russia and Ukraine.