Tag: Russia Ukraine War

US Elections And World Peace

US Elections And World Peace

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Around the world there is interest in the United States elections. India awaits, so does China, Russia, European Union, Great Britain and Middle East among many. They do for different reasons. While Americans have their own priorities in deciding who they elect, the impact of the United States worldwide on economy and international politics is what draws keen following of the candidates outside USA.

Foreign policy is said not to feature much in the American electorate. Immigration, domestic economy, jobs, prejudices, taxation etc are foremost in the minds of the American electorate. However, it is not entirely correct to say that Americans are not concerned about the image and influence of United States worldwide when assessing the Presidential candidates.

Donald Trump made US tendency for unnecessary and costly interventions in ‘other people’s affairs’ one of the key pitches in the 2016 elections. This time he has again brought Ukraine and Middle East into the debates claiming that if he had been president, Russia would not have attacked Ukraine and that he could solve the Middle East issue. Kamla Harris accuses Trump of reducing US influence in the international sphere, abandoning friends and American values in favour of dictators and tyrannical governments.

In these two different positions lie the different ideological approaches of the two candidates and the impact they are likely to have in international affairs. It is that which concerns countries like China, Russia, India and Europe among others.

Kamla Harris is still a creature of the Democratic party. The Democratic Party is a well established machine with linked think-tanks, internal policy groups and forums, advisors and a bureaucratic set up that requires its candidates to work with and promote party line. It is not Kamla Harris who decides policy at whim, but a set of machinery through which policy passes and is approved or supported. True that every candidate needs to show that he or she is bringing a new perspective and a new direction, but it is the machine that comes up with ideas and policies that appear to be different.

In foreign affairs however, the Democratic party is rooted in ideology promoting democracy and liberal values around the world with some pragmatic adjustments. It splashes money around, its aid to developing countries comes with a demand to transforming into democratic polity and observing human rights as well as capitalism. Where it doesn’t work, Democrats are interventionists, financing internal coups, or directly sending its army to ‘improve the conditions of the people’. Democrats have the approach of crusaders for democratic liberal values.

However, democrats are also pragmatic where powerful countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are concerned and strategic interests are served with non-intervention. In much of the Middle East, the USA has cosy relationships with stable absolute Monarchies where little if any democracy exists. In fact it has defence pacts with them with substantive chunk of US army stationed there. Its interests are to ensure supply of oil and to have influence in the Middle East.

Democrats have a long history of interventionist foreign policy and starting wars. Usually they haven’t been successful. But driven by ideology in international relations, it is difficult for a Democrat President to ignore the pressure from NGOs, media and think-tanks when human rights situation in a country becomes dire. At the least, a Democratic President is not expected to be comfortable with ‘bad’ countries such as China, Iran and Russia among others.

Historically Republicans haven’t been much different although their motives are not as altruistic as the Democrats. The Bush administration was quite interventionist after 9/11. Republican policies are motivated by the need to install ‘friendly’ regimes and preferential access to resources.

Donald Trump is however his own man. He is not bound by consensus within the party, think-tanks, human rights organisations, media etc. He doesn’t seem to much care about Republic party’s priorities in foreign policy. He has ripped apart US international relations theories.

From his last tenure as President, it appears Trump’s foreign policy is founded on three pillars. The first is transactional. He prefers to negotiate the US position and look for advantage to America. He is not bothered by the nature of the government, as he showed last time when visiting Saudi Arabia or shaking hands with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

Secondly Trump is determined to maintain United States dominance rather than cultural or political hegemony.  He will increase defence spending if he thought other countries are leaving the USA behind. In transactional Foreign Policy, Trump believes in negotiating with a strong hand.

Thirdly, he is non-interventionist. Trump has said that wars abroad are expensive and drain on resources. He probably thinks that these wars reduce US standing, prestige and ability to negotiate. He is a realist rather than an idealist. He has adjusted to a changed world order.

ALSO READ: Is This The America World Wants To See?

Trump has already hinted that he will end the Ukraine war. The general expectation is that he will stop sending arms and force Ukraine to negotiate for peace, even from a weaker hand. It will remain to be seen how he manages the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Chances are he is likely to turn to Israel and tell it to stop the war, negotiate and move on. He is also likely to tell Palestinian Hamas to recognise Israel and take what it gets.

The Democrats haven’t quite moved on from the cold war. That period was ideological conflict between Capitalism represented by the USA, and Communism represented by the Soviets. As the Soviet fell and Communism faded, the cold war resumed over democracy and human rights in one corner and semi democracies and dictatorships on the other. Democrats still run proxy wars. This time they had Ukraine fighting to bring down Putin with the hope that Russia will become weaker and more compliant.

Europeans too are still stuck with a cold war approach to international affairs, seeing the ‘good us’ and the ‘evil other’. They like Kamla Harris and don’t seem to be keen on Trump. European foreign policy is still clouded with ideological intentions to transform the world into a ‘better’ place for all under European tutelage. Their interactions in Ukraine have all the hallmarks of a bygone era.

But Russia is not the real opposition now. The ideology conflicts are the past. The new world order is a tension between the still ideological west and the no nonsense China. China has no intention of engaging in ideological conflicts. It doesn’t want western democracy and it is not exporting Chinese form of Government anywhere. It has a businesslike approach. It has arisen from a poorly developing country to be the second most powerful country, predicted to overtake USA.

Trump seems more adept at understanding the new world order. He said he doesn’t want to change the world into ‘our image’. His positioning in international affairs is closer to China now. He understands that ideology isn’t important anymore. In shaking hands with Kim Jong Un he was possibly trying to prize away North Korea from its deeper link with and dependency on China.

Kamla Harris is still a better person for most Americans, but for the international community, Trump might be a better President as he will avoid interventions, avoid ideological tensions and play the transaction game in international affairs.

Trump does scare some countries due to his unpredictability. But that is part of his strategic approach to assess what will work best. Whereas, as Putin said, Democrats are predictable as they are driven by ideology. The world has changed, the United States hasn’t caught up yet. Trump is more likely to bring it to speed.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

India’s Russian Ties are More Complex than Putin-Modi Bear Hug

India’s Russian Ties are More Complex than Putin’s Bear Hug of Modi

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last week a video clip showing India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi hugging Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in Moscow went viral on social media. Commentators described it as Putin’s “bear hug” of Modi and said that it underscored India’s deep and long-standing partnership with Russia, which was forged in the Cold War years when Russia was still the Soviet Union, and has endured through the decades after the fall of the communist regime in 1991.

Modi’s visit to Russia predictably raised concerns in the West, especially as it coincided with the 75th annual meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Washington, a crucial gathering this time as Russia’s war in Ukraine rages on for more than two years with no sign of an end. NATO, which is a strategic intergovernmental military alliance of 30 European and two North American countries, was concerned that Russia was supported by China and this increased the challenges that the West has been facing because of the latter’s rise and importance in geopolitics.

Modi arrived in Russia and was welcomed by Putin on the same day that Russian forces allegedly launched a massive missile attack in Kyiv, one of the most deadly since Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022. The missiles struck civilian targets, including a childrens’ hospital. The viral video of Modi and Putin’s hugs was, therefore, not a good look. Yet, while India has not condemned the war it has never condoned it.

India’s Complex Foreign Policy Strategy

This time too Prime Minister Modi reiterated in Moscow and later in Vienna when he made a state visit to Austria that war was not a solution and that India believed in peace. But India has not categorically condemned Russia’s attack. There are reasons for that.

As a China-Russia bloc has emerged to challenge the West (US and its allies, including the European Union), India has carefully calibrated its foreign policy. It has not jumped on the West’s bandwagon; neither has it put in its lot with the Eastern bloc represented by China and Russia. This is not a new strategy. India’s finely tuned multilateral foreign policy has been a long standing one. 

True, India buys oil and defence equipment from Russia. Its oil imports from Russia have increased significantly after the attack on Ukraine following which the West imposed sanctions on Russia. However, things are not that simple. Russia has moved closer to China at a time when India’s relations with China have strained. Russia has also got closer to Pakistan, an arch rival of India. Pakistan is now part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which is a Eurasian political, economic, international security and defence organistion. SCO is often seen as NATO’s eastern rival, led by China and Russia, which challenges the West-dominated world order although unlike NATO it is not only a military alliance. Putin has recently declared that Pakistan is one of its primary partners in South Asia. 

Statements of that sort queer the pitch for India’s relations with Russia. As a middle power, unaligned with the West or the East, India straddles the divide between the blocs by having a finger in every pie. It is a member of BRICS, an intergovernmental organisation comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates; it is a member of the SCO; and it is also a member of the Indo-Pacific Quad, a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the US, which is seen as a strategic grouping to reduce China’s dominance in the region.

ALSO READ: Why Biden-Trump Debate Should Fill World With Horror

Inherent in these alignments with different groupings could be contradictions. For example, the Quad is aimed at curbing China, while in BRICS and SCO, China plays a lead role. Yet, India is part of all three. 

Moreover, under Modi, since 2014, India has been growing closer to the West. 

The rise of China and its challenge to the Western bloc has led to unprecedented ties between the US and India, which include security cooperation as part of the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy, essentially designed to counter China. Obviously, this is not something that Russia would support.

There was a time when India’s dependence on Russia for defence equipment and technology was high. In fact, Russia is still the biggest arms exporter to India but that is changing. India is now increasing its arms purchases from the US and France. In fact, after Russia, France is the second largest supplier of weapons to India, and the US is now the third largest. Indeed, with the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russian defence supplies available for India to buy are declining.

India’s multilateral foreign policy strategy can be a tricky tightrope to navigate but it has its advantages. Western observers can criticise India for not condemning Russia’s attack on Ukraine but the fact is that while it is true that India has not made an official statement that condemns the war, it has repeatedly officially stated that it does not support it. Prime Minister Modi has reiterated that in his meetings with Putin as well as elsewhere. 

In fact, India’s international policy has been to optimise and ensure its own interests while dealing with others, be it the Western or Eastern bloc. It buys relatively cheap Russian oil, technologically superior western defence equipment and arms, it allies with the US to counter threats from China, and also indicates its disapproval of the war in Ukraine. It is in what you might call an enviable sweet spot.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Tricky For Journalists To Cover A War

How Tricky It Is For Journalists To Cover A War

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last week, Israel accused four freelance Gaza-based journalists who have worked with Western media outlets of having advance knowledge of the Hamas attack on October 7, which triggered the ongoing bloody conflict in Gaza. The journalists, mainly photographers, were accused of collaborating with Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, and the New York Times, all of them media outlets of considerable repute.

The accusation, made by Israeli communications minister Shlomo Karhi, was based on a report by a pro-Israeli media watchdog group, Honest Reporting, which stated that the journalists and, therefore, the organisations they were working for had prior knowledge of the horrific attacks by Hamas. In the past also, Honest Reporting has accused newspapers such as the New York Times and other western publications of an anti-Israel bias in their coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The accusations have serious implications. In the October 7 attack, 1,200 Israelis died and more than 240 were taken hostage. It has led to a bloody battle with Israel seeking retribution by launching a full-scale attack against Hamas but the collateral damage from which has killed, displaced or injured thousands of civilians.

On their part, the four media outlets—Reuters, AP, CNN, and the New York Times—have denied any prior knowledge of the attacks. They emphasised that there were no arrangements in advance with the journalists to provide photos. The New York Times described the accusations as “untrue and outrageous,” highlighting the risk such unsupported claims pose to journalists on the ground in Israel and Gaza.

Covering wars such as the one that is ongoing in Gaza or the one that is raging for nearly two years in Ukraine after Russia attacked the country in February 2022 is fraught with risks. Of course, the primary risks that journalists face are obvious: the possibility of getting caught in the attacks, suffering injuries, or even getting killed. But there are other risks. How credible are journalists’ war-time sources?

In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the picture of what is happening can vary sharply, depending on what the source is. If it is the Russian propaganda machinery, which also includes pro-Kremlin bloggers “embedded” in Russia’s military in the war zone, then you will get the pro-Russia view; if it is sourced from Ukraine, then it is likely going to be an entirely different view.

In Gaza, journalists covering the conflict face significant challenges. First, there are the restrictions. Israel has not allowed foreign journalists to enter Gaza. As a result, Western correspondents (as well as Indian media outlets that sent their representatives there) have reported extensively on the grief of Israeli families, but they miss a vital aspect of the story by not being able to witness the situation firsthand in Gaza. Without experiencing the prayers Palestinians make when they lose loved ones or learning about the life stories of those who have been killed, the coverage of Gaza remains incomplete compared to the coverage of Israel.

Israel has been steadily suppressing news reporting in the Gaza Strip. Journalists have faced danger, with some killed or wounded, media premises destroyed, and communication disruptions. There is a looming threat of an all-out media blackout in Gaza.

Journalists also face entry bans in Gaza. Since Israel blockaded the area 16 years ago, journalists cannot enter the Palestinian territory without authorisation from Israeli authorities. In addition, there could be further restrictions on Muslim journalists as three Muslim journalists from MSNBC—Mehdi Hasan, Ayman Mohieddine, and Ali Velshi—were suspended. This decision coincided with escalating tensions in the Gaza area.

On the other side too, Hamas, the ruling group in Gaza, has imposed (and later rescinded) some restrictions on journalists covering the conflict. After the recent conflict in Gaza, Hamas issued sweeping new restrictions on journalists in the Palestinian enclave. These rules included not reporting on Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets; and avoiding coverage of the military capabilities of Palestinian terror groups. However, these guidelines were rescinded after discussions with authorities in Gaza. The Foreign Press Association (FPA), which represents international media, expressed that such restrictions would have been a severe limitation on press freedom and safety. Hamas confirmed the reversal and stated that there are currently no restrictions.

For journalists, trying to cover a war objectively and without bias could be an oxymoron. Most journalists are dependent on one or the other side of the warring nations. If reporters and photographers are in Israel covering what is going on in Gaza, you can expect their reports and dispatches to reflect the Israeli view of things; if they are on the other side, then the views could be quite different. Over the past nearly two years, making sense of who is making progress or suffering more losses in Ukraine has become a complex business: you either get the Russian view or the Ukrainian view, none of which might be the “true” picture.

The Cosmic Blueprint of Xi Jinping

There is a photograph that you can find with relative ease on the Internet. It shows China’s supreme leader and President Xi Jinping, flanked by Russian President Vladimir Putin, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and some two dozen top dignitaries from around the world. The photograph is from the third Belt & Road Forum for International Cooperation that was held on October 17 & 18 in Beijing.

It also marked the 10th anniversary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure and investment project announced by Xi in 2013. Many see this as part of China’s and Xi’s larger vision of a blueprint for a new world order to challenge the existing international system that it feels is unfairly skewed in favour of the United States and its allies.

Xi’s vision transcends mere governance and is more of a cosmic plan to reshape China’s role, influence, prominence, and, indeed, dominance of the world.

China was once happy to hide its capacities–economic, military, and cultural–and bide its time. It is no longer content to do so. Xi, who is on an unprecedented third term at the helm of his nation, wants to redefine the norms, dismantle existing “western biased” hierarchies and meld together a world where China’s rise is unstoppable. This vision unambiguously pervades every forum, conference, policy formulation, and international strategy that China now espouses.

The Belt & Road Forum was no different. The heads of states who attended it hailed China’s strategy and Xi’s vision. Notably, the United Nations’ Secretary General was a participant at the forefront of the forum.

For the West, Xi’s gambit resembles a tectonic shift. American wars overseas, erratic foreign policy shifts, and deep political polarisation have eroded confidence in US global leadership. Moreover, within the US, opinions, support, and allegiances are sharply polarised and divisive, raising questions there and elsewhere in the world about the relevance and effectiveness of a US-led world order. Is its approach sustainable? Can it navigate the tempests of climate change, geopolitical tensions, and humanitarian crises?

As China’s assertiveness grows, the West faces a choice: adapt or resist. Xi’s alternative model—multilateralism reframed as great-power balancing—tempts some. Yet, lurking beneath are shadows of Beijing’s iron-fisted rule—surveillance, censorship, and repression.

Where does India fit into this? Thus far, India’s approach has been cautious as it tries to balance ancient wisdom and modern ambitions. India seeks economic ties with China while guarding its strategic interests. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) looms large—an infrastructure web that binds nations but also raises sovereignty concerns. India is not a signatory to that initiative.

India’s strategy has been a sort of tightrope walk where it has tried to tango with both the West and with Beijing. It wants to harness economic opportunities from both, yet remains wary of Beijing’s territorial assertiveness and military buildup in the Indo-Pacific.

Xi’s vision does resonate with a large swathe of regions and countries around the world, including predominantly developing nations in Asia, Africa, and South America. His vision exhorts countries to forge creative coalitions—beyond simplistic divisions of democracies versus autocracies. North Korea and Iran share this stage with moderate, modernising nations. The global future, Xi suggests, demands nimble alliances.

In this scenario, India, which has had a rich history of alliances with international partners, has to traverse a shifting landscape. As the most populous nation in the world and with hundreds of millions of young people with high aspirations, India would ideally like to have a louder voice in the emerging new order, and not merely be a spectator. For that to happen, perhaps it is time for India to review its tightrope-walking style of geopolitical strategy and be more decisive.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Russia Ukraine war

Ukraine: 2 Killed, 5 Injured In Russian Missile Attack

By LokMarg

At least two people were killed and five others injured after Russia launched a missile strike on Monday on a Ukraine village, CNN reported citing a senior Ukrainian official. 

Andrii Yermak, head of the Ukrainian President’s office, said the strike caused an explosion at an oil mill in the village of Hoholeve.

Local officials said search operations and the removal of rubble are ongoing.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry told reporters that its Air Defense Troops have foiled Kyiv’s attempt to attack Russian territory with an aircraft-type drone and shot it down in the Moscow Region, as per TASS News Agency. 

“On August 28, at about 4:30 am Moscow time, the Air Defense Troops foiled another attempt of the Kiev regime to carry out a terrorist attack on Russian territory with an aircraft-type drone. It was destroyed in the air over the territory of the Lyubertsy district of the Moscow Region,” the ministry said.

While Moscow’s Mayor Sergey Sobyanin on his Telegram channel wrote, “Today the Air Defense Troops destroyed a drone flying towards Moscow in the Lyubertsy area. For the time being, there are no casualties and no destruction. Emergency services are working at the scene of the incident.”

Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials on Monday claimed that Russia launched strikes across Ukraine overnight, killing at least one person and damaging homes and infrastructure, CNN reported. 

In Kherson, at least one person died and two others were injured after Russian forces shelled residential areas, according to Oleksandr Prokudin, head of the southern region’s military administration. 

“The enemy carried out 69 shellings over the past 24 hours, launching 395 shells from mortars, artillery, tanks, Grad MLRS, UAVs, and aircraft,” Prokudin said on Telegram Monday. 

In central Ukraine, Russian strikes hit infrastructure in the Poltava region, said Dmytro Lunin, the head of its regional military administration. 

Missile attacks damaged homes in the central city of Kryvyi Rih, while the nearby Nikopol district was shelled, according to Serhii Lysak, head of the Dnipropetrovsk region military administration, according to CNN.

Ukrainian air defences destroyed four cruise missiles over the past day, the military said Monday. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Biden’s West Asia Tour – Who Had The Last Laugh?

By LokMarg

American President Joe Biden was on a four-day trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia, his first trip to the Middle East since taking office last year, with a lot of expectations about resetting the ties with Saudi Arabia and also giving a new direction to US policies in the Middle East.

The visit started with meetings in Israel to expand security ties and discuss Iranian belligerence in the region. He next went to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he attempted to reassure regional leaders – and the rest of the world – that his administration remains committed to actively engaging in the Middle East and counter any Russian or Chinese plans to expand their geopolitical influence.

US-Saudi Arab Relations

Coming in the backdrop of the continuing Russia-Ukraine war and spiralling global oil prices, the visit was also seen as a rapprochement by the U.S. President to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), whom he blamed for the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and thus pave the way for softening the Saudi stance on increased oil production.

However, the manner in which the two leaders greeted each other with a fist bump has been criticised both by fellow Democrats and Republicans, due to its undiplomatic nature and also as a middle ground to thaw the ice, perhaps on the advice of their key lieutenants.

Also the version given by Biden and Saudis as to whether the President admonished MbS seem to vary, thus indicating that the President was ready to give up his old stance for the Saudi agreement to increase its oil production, though ultimately he got no such assurance.

The meetings in Jeddah largely seemed to go along with the planned reset of the U.S. relationship with the kingdom, and Biden announced several new areas of cooperation aimed at reshaping US-Saudi relations.

ALSO READ: Ukraine War Will Script New World Order

However, the President did strike an optimistic note that regional leaders would soon take action given that the next OPEC meeting will take place in early August, after his parley with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders in Riyadh.

US-Iran Ties

Biden is also under pressure to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region, and during the visit he made a commitment to the US playing a large role in the Middle East for years to come.

In Israel, Biden repeatedly vowed to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and said he believed diplomacy remained the best avenue to keep Tehran from obtaining one.

Biden has pushed for a revival of the Iran nuclear deal, which former president Donald Trump withdrew the US from in 2018, as he faces increasing pressure from key Middle East allies to produce a plan to contain Iran. But hopes appear to be fading that a deal will materialise, and the President acknowledged that the U.S. is “not going to wait forever” for a response from Iranian leadership.

US-Israel Relations

America’s relationship with Israel has also been strained in recent years. Obama and former Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu shared a strained relationship over Palestine, and the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran also soured the relations.

But the Biden administration’s renewed efforts to re-implement the Iran nuclear deal, coupled with warnings over Israel’s expansion of settlements in the West Bank, have further complicated U.S. -Israeli relations again.

In addition, US is also worried about the growing Russian and Chinese influence in the region. Iran has cosied-up to Russia significantly in recent years and the Chinese have made themselves more useful both to the Saudis and Emiratis in defence and trade sectors.

The New Approach

His critics say that Biden to an extent continued with the old American baggage. And if he really wants to rest the American foreign policy for West Asia and its Arab allies, it will have to adopt a more proactive and less preaching stance with a new perspective, too. Biden himself said during the trip that he continues to believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve a new outcome.

But to achieve that outcome, he’ll have to pursue soft-diplomacy also. Additionally, the U.S.  should try to give-up the mentality to solve every problem or conflict with military means and tactics, instead it should try to focus and see the alternative opportunities available to help the people of the Middle East achieve greater freedom and prosperity which they desire.

For this, the renewed American focus should prioritise its interests through better security management for itself and its allies. Ensuring that terrorist threats from the Arab world should remain a focus of U.S. engagement in the region.

Further, it should focus on economic welfare of the region. The Middle East’s energy resources remain critical to the global economy. In addition, the U.S. should try to foster lasting economic ties with emerging centres of innovation in the region.

Additionally, it should focus on values and rights, which the United States supports i.e. religious freedom, women’s rights, and freedom of expression. These should be promoted through its soft diplomacy or public diplomacy channels. There is a huge aspiration amongst the people of the region to fill-up the chasm between what is available and what they wish for, ensuring dignity and prosperity for all.

At the same time, it should try to engage more with the young generation amongst the Arabs, the 13th edition of the Arab Youth Survey found that over 90% of Saudi youth, who form nearly two-thirds of the country’s population, see the U.S. as an ally. This should be its target audience

It should focus on boosting bilateral ties in new areas such as tourism, information technology, and clean energy and focus less on energy sector.

It should launch joint initiatives on human security challenges such as in the health sector, economic security, human rights, and climate change. It should engage in renewed diplomatic efforts to end conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Try to contain and engage Iran with diplomacy backed by a balanced regional security strategy. Renewed diplomacy with Iran must include America’s regional security partners in order to produce lasting results. It should strive for greater regional integration with renewed and inclusive diplomacy on the Arab-Israeli front, too.

Overall, the visit failed to accomplish what Biden wanted to achieve in the region, and for any success the U.S. will have to fully recalibrate its policy towards the Middle East, Iran and Israel in the short-term for long-term gains and keeping the Russians and Chinese at bay in the region.

(Asad Mirza is a political commentator based in New Delhi. He writes on issues related to Muslims, education, geopolitics and interfaith)

Theatre Of Horror In Ukraine

By Amit Sengupta

We took prisoners, brought them to the detachment… We didn’t shoot them, that was too easy a death for them; we stuck them with ramrods like pigs, we cut them to pieces. I went to look at it… I waited a long time for the moment when their eyes would begin to burst from pain… The pupils… What do you know about it! They burned my mother and little sisters on a bonfire in the middle of our village…

— Svetlana Alexievich, The Unwomanly Face of War

This is her first book. Exiled and hounded in Soviet Russia, this Noble-prize winning journalist has lived most of her life out there and in Belarus, currently ruled by another dictator, Vladimir Putin’s war-mongering buddy. Surrounded by women who fought the bloody battles in the Second World War against the marauding fascists of Adolf Hitler, the journalist documented the lives and times of scores of Soviet women: snipers, nurses, doctors, tank drivers, captains, soldiers, mothers and sisters and daughters who were at the front.

She quotes Osip Mandelstam: Millions of the cheaply killed / Have trod the path in darkness…

She writes, with deep sadness, borne out of the history of her own ravaged land which defeated the fascists: ‘‘During World War II, the world was witness to a women’s phenomenon. Women served in all branches of the military in many countries of the world: 225,000 in the British army, 450,000 to 500,000 in the American, 500,000 in German… About a million women fought in the Soviet army…

Svetlana writes in the second chapter, A Human Being is Greater than War: “The children of the victors. What is the first thing I remember about the war…? My childhood anguish amid the incomprehensible and frightening words. The war was remembered all the time: at school and at home, at weddings and christenings, at celebrations and wakes. Even in children’s conversations. The neighbour’s boy once asked me: ‘What do people do under the ground…? How do they live there…?’ We too, wanted to unravel the mystery of war… It was then that I began to think about death…”

Pablo Picasso’s Guernica, painted with the immense intensity of immaculate pain, in the backdrop of bombings and the Holocaust, has been resurrected yet again in our own special distances of angst and anger, as Ukraine fights back, and it is indeed fighting back with its back to the wall, and the Russians know it, especially the detached, dehumanized, dictator in Moscow, who seems to have learnt no lessons from the Nazi barbarism in his own beloved homeland which sacrificed more than 20 million fighting people in the war, as the Red Army conquered Berlin and Hitler committed suicide.

Other memories of immaculate insomnia are creeping back, as real time war stories, as Kiev holds on, children die, run for their lives, and more than 1 million Ukrainians are turned refugees in a senseless war which Russians do not support and which even Putin seems to have no clue about.

Is he thinking of Adolf these days in his hallucinations of becoming Peter the Great, the Tzar of the erstwhile Russian empire, the immortal King of Kremlin? Isolated by the world, his banks and economy squeezed out, his own people hating him, and even China fudging its bets since it has huge stakes in western and global economy, this suicidal shadow he has willfully cast upon himself, seems so historically familiar. Indeed, this could be the last hurrah for Tsar Putin, with his personally stocked up billions in hidden accounts and the many luxury yachts and dachas at stake, seemingly appearing like dust in a desert.

An Indian student walks across and is shot. Others somehow escape to the border, helpless at the various check posts. Ukrainians hugging each other, as if for the last time, lovers and beloveds, mothers and daughters, soldiers, young and old. Women learning how to operate the famous Kalashnikov. A world boxing champion picks up the gun. A tennis player builds up a solidarity network while playing in Mexico. A former beauty queen joins the barricades.

ALSO READ: Will Putin Dismember Ukraine?

And along with their gutsy president, in fatigue, no more a comic artist of great excellence, but a soldier leading from the front, refusing to run, becoming a democratic role model when compared to a totalitarian Putin.

How many Russian soldiers have been killed so far, and how many wounded in this mindless, meaningless war, is a conjecture not even Putin can solve. Now, it is being revealed that they did not even know why they were fighting the war in the first instance: surely, this is no war against fascism! And will Putin be able to eliminate the truth even as he bans all national and international media telling the bitter stories in Ukraine and Russia?

How many Ukrainian civilians, kids and soldiers, have been killed so far in this nasty war, and how many wounded? The death count multiplies, as the brave shed their blood on the barricades and on the streets. Russian soldiers giving tea, sharing love and compassion with the captured Ukrainian soldiers. Talk to your mother, a young Russian woman soldier tells her neighbour. Tell her, you are safe, that you will be back in the warmth of your cosy home in this cruel winter once again. Tell her, mother, dear mother, don’t you worry, I am with old friends, and they speak our language, like we speak theirs, and we share the same history, mother, and we know so well the difficult childhood memories of war!

The Guardian in London reports that Otaci is border town in the poorest country in Europe: Moldova. It is located on the opposite of river Dniester, across the city of Mohyliv-Podlsky in Ukraine, as a friendly town next door. A bridge links the two.  There are other old, cherished, shared bonds too.

So, the people of Otaci, like the people of all border towns, have stood up like a rock to reach out to the people of Ukraine. They are providing them with warm food, warm shelter, internet and free onward travel in cars and taxis across other destinations in Europe. ‘‘Where is your wife,’’ asks a volunteer in Otaci. ‘‘She is across the bridge.’’ “Don’t you worry”, tells the volunteer, “she will make it.”

UN news reports that amid dwindling food supplies in embattled areas in Ukraine, the conflict could have devastating consequences beyond the country.  It has reported that an unpreceded number of traumatized people are desperately leaving the besieged country in ruins, being bombed out from all sides, but still holding ground with millions staying back and refusing to move, fighting it out till death must come, if it must come at all!

Heavy fighting is being reported from the nuclear plant in Ukraine. Radiation levels are normal and the facility’s cooling system has had no impact, a senior political affairs official of the UN told the Security Council in an emergency meeting. Now, this Putin’s war, is turning into a deadly theatre of the absurd.

The concluding chapter of Svetlana Alexievich’s book tells the story of Ukraine as it dies to live. It is called, ‘Suddenly we wanted to desperately to live’. She writes:

It was Stalingrad… The most terrible battles. The most, most terrible. My precious one… There can’t be one heart for hatred and another for love. We have only one, and I always thought about how to save my heart… For a long time after the war I was afraid of the sky, never of raising my head towards the sky. I was afraid of seeing plowed-up earth. But the rooks already walked calmly over it. The birds quickly forgot the war…

The question is, will Europe and the world forget this one-dimensional war in the days to come? Will all the children come back home yet again? Will the dew-soaked birds choose to fly in the dawn, tweeting, across the black sky, ravaged by a mindless war?

Yes, they will.