From Ukraine to Kashmir: The old laws of power still apply
There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere – and provides some useful lessons.
Since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, India’s official stance has generally aligned with Moscow’s interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace.
While many in India’s political and media elite – especially the pro-Western crowd – have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles.
India’s official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said:
“India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence.”
Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added:
“The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability.”
And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums:
“Wars are not the way to settle disputes.”
The consistent refrain at countless conferences about “peace in Europe” boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some “public intellectual” would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope – advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today.
It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov’s 2005 movie Dead Man’s Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: “Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.”
It wasn’t just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called “rising powers” repeated similar mantras.
Now, let’s be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about “wisdom” and peace as if it’s a fresh insight is banal – and, frankly, vulgar. Because when real danger arrives – when an enemy or existential threat targets your home – there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That’s not bloodlust; it’s the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today’s global order. You can deny it, but you can’t make it disappear.
Western propaganda’s greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia’s offensive was a “war of choice” rather than a “war of necessity” – which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise. When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will – without even realizing it – abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life.
As the Bible reminds us: “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).
What should Russia do now? Stay the course – finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed.
Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second.
Happy World War Two Victory Day – to us, and to peace.
