India’s World reached out to six Indian strategic thinkers for their views on whether India should mediate in the Russia-Ukraine war. This is what they had to say.
Lt. Gen (Retd.) Raj Shukla
Lieutenant General Raj Shukla is a retired Officer of the Indian Army and is currently a Member of the Union Public Service Commission.
Let us look at the proposition from the standpoints of ‘pragmatism’, ‘leverages’ and ‘priorities’. Given the whole chaos surrounding the Trumpian initiatives at brokering a swift end to the conflict, I don’t see what will be the salience of an Indian role. Who is inviting us in?
From the point of view of ‘leverages’ we do not have too many cards. Unlike the USA, which has incentives to offer, pressure points to apply, given the prevalent realities, ‘honest brokerage’ is not an offer that will be particularly utilitarian.
Given the grim security environment around India, we have higher priorities like the deterrence of China. In sum therefore, at this point, it may be wise to refrain. Our diplomatic capital may be put to better use in other endeavours.
Amb. Anil Trigunayat
Anil Trigunayat is a former Indian Diplomat, and was India’s ambassador to Indian Ambassador to Jordan, Libya & Malta.
The world, especially the Global South and the Middle East, expects India to take on its legitimate role of a benign power that follows a sane foreign policy underwritten by dialogue, diplomacy and respect for the UN charter. PM Modi has been engaged with President Putin, the Ukranian President, and world leaders regarding possibly ending this conflict. He even visited the two countries. I would not say that we can mediate but we can be interlocutors for peace. We could even host the final talks between leaders as India enjoys the trust of all sides. As Dr Jaishankar said, there will be costs, but a regional and global power will have to absorb them in its stride. I think it’s time to take the steps to help in peace making, knowing fully well that the USA is the only country that has the capacity to end these ongoing wars.’
Brig Arun Sahgal
Brigadier Arun Sahgal is Executive Director of the Forum for Strategic Initiative (FSI)
While reams can be written on the cease-fire process and which all countries could be part of such an international mission. Based on the available information and proposals being outlined, as well as our own discussions with important analysts in the West and Russia, an outline of the Cease Fire Process and some suggested steps where India’s role can fit in are outlined below:
1. Agreement on a ceasefire along an accepted line and codify the same. This will form the basis from which the parties must withdraw. (Between parties, prompted by international players – US, NATO, Russians. May include other important players as collateral, here Russia could reach out to India and China (scope for diplomacy).
2. Create a Joint Military Coordination Commission (JMCC) to enable mil‑to‑mil contacts and coordination through which the parties can exchange information and hold each other accountable.
3. A contact group will be the functional element of JMCC. This could be formed for the purpose of; forging coherence to international efforts, to create a greater sense of urgency and focus on common purpose among key stakeholders. Idea being to make proposals, take common initiatives and exert political pressure to reduce tensions; and finally create conditions for dialogue. This would also include legally binding bilateral security assurances visible “peace dividend confidence-building measures are all part of this process”. P5 and BRICS are being talked about as members of JMCC.
4.Bilateral cooperation could be augmented by a third-party Multilateral Liaison Team. Some of the tasks can be agreement on buffer zones and limitation zones for deploying heavy weapons. An international monitoring and verification mission must monitor the ceasefire and verify the withdrawal of heavy weapons. Given the intense antagonism, it will require multinational forces, given India’s experience in ICC in Korea, UN Peacekeeping and above all acceptance as a fair and neutral interlocutor among both parties, are positives for acceptance of India as an important player. There is a possibility, Trump Administration may have some other views, that could include China, leaving India out. A political call will need to be taken on this issue.
Amb. T.S. Tirumurti
Amb. T. S. Tirumurti is a former Indian diplomat, and was India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York from 2020 to 2022.
In the last two decades, India has not been willing to play an active regional or international political role in conflicts around the world since, rightly, we prioritised economic growth. While we contributed to the global good like Vaccine Maitri during Covid, climate action like establishing the International Solar Alliance, digital public infrastructure, etc, we seem to have convinced ourselves that if we take an active political role on global or regional conflicts, it could adversely affect our growth, business and development.
Firstly, faced with a global reset, both geopolitically, economically and even ideologically, by the Trump administration, where the US could well withdraw or downsize its engagements in some regions, mainly Europe, this may be the best time for India to start playing a more proactive political role in regional conflicts, including Ukraine war.
Further, when one becomes the fifth largest economy and has credibility as a thriving democracy, the international community’s expectations from India only increase. If we don’t meet those expectations, we are ceding space to countries like Türkiye or Saudi Arabia or Qatar, to tackle conflicts in the Middle East, Europe, Taiwan, the South China Sea, etc, where our stakes are high. This is true of the Ukraine war as well.
Moreover, our adversarial relations with our big neighbour China will not vanish anytime soon. Strengthening alignments with our friends in theatres outside our region, including in Europe, is key. A more active political role globally is essential to protect our strategic space – a space which we have used for development and growth.
We must regain our political role, not necessarily as a mediator, but as a geopolitical player committed to international peace and security. For example, India played an important role in the Korean war in the UN Security Council between 1951-1952 — less than four years after independence. The fact that we were an impoverished nation due to colonial rule did not deter us, and in recognition, we were made Chair of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Committee after the armistice.
Therefore, as we go forward, India will be better positioned to protect its national interests, economic development, and strategic space by playing a greater political role in regional and other conflicts. An increase in India’s political heft can only do Indian economy good.
Ms. Indrani Bagchi
Indrani Bagchi is the Chief Executive Officer at Ananta Centre, India. She was Associate Editor with the Times of India from 2004 until 2022.
“Should India offer its mediation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?”
No, I don’t think India should offer to mediate this conflict. First, this is not only a bilateral conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It comes with a complex history that involves a large part of the western world. India would be wasting its time.
Second, this conflict is also a proxy war in which India should have no role.
Third, nobody has officially invited India to play any role. There have been suggestions in the media, but India should not contemplate any action until all sides officially request India’s presence.
So, what can India do? I think India’s role, if any, should be to ensure that peace negotiations are fair — to the extent that all sides are interested in maintaining the peace. History is replete with unfairly imposed peace agreements that have swiftly unravelled, creating bigger conflicts than those they sought to solve.
Amb. Ajay Bisaria
Amb. Ajay Bisaria is a Indian former diplomat and was India’s envoy to Canada, Pakistan, Poland, Lithuania.
Currently, we have only one viable peace plan in play to end the Ukraine conflict: the Trump plan. It is based on a realist assessment of the power play and battlefield realities, envisages separate talks with Ukraine and Russia, and is expected to culminate in a Putin – Trump meet in Riyadh to clinch the deal. I don’t think we have space for alternative plans; other players are only spectators to this central stream of diplomacy. India made a modest peace move in 2024 by meeting all stakeholders last year. It could play a role in peacemaking if UN peacekeeping troops are pulled in based on a UNSC resolution.
