ZELENSKY MISSED THE BUS

Zelensky failed to see through that he was only a pawn on Biden’s broader strategic chessboard and the Americans would not allow Indian peace seeking efforts succeed.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen various peace initiatives emerge from different international actors, each bringing unique leverage and motivations to the negotiating table. A closer examination of India's peace efforts, compared with those of major powers like the United States, reveals significant differences in approach and potential outcomes that may have represented a missed opportunity for Ukraine.

INDIA'S UNIQUE POSITION AS A PEACE BROKER

India occupies a distinctive position in the geopolitical landscape that could have made its peace initiatives particularly valuable:

1.  Non-extractive diplomacy: Unlike major powers with extensive geopolitical interests, India's relatively lower-profile status in European security affairs meant its peace initiatives would likely have been motivated primarily by diplomatic recognition rather than material or territorial concessions. This non-extractive approach could have created space for more equitable negotiations.

2.  The Modi-Putin relationship: Prime Minister Modi's established personal relationship with President Putin represents a diplomatic channel that few other world leaders possess. This relationship could have been leveraged to influence Russia toward more favourable terms than might otherwise be possible. PM Modi's ability to speak frankly with President Putin while maintaining neutrality in the conflict created a unique diplomatic opening.

3.  Credibility with both sides: India has maintained relationships with both Russia and Western powers, purchasing Russian oil while simultaneously developing stronger ties with the United States and Europe. This balanced approach gave India credibility as a potential honest broker in ways that more aligned powers lacked.

The hesitation to fully embrace India's initiatives may indeed represent a strategic miscalculation by Ukraine and its Western supporters, particularly given the alternatives that have emerged since.

CONTRASTING APPROACHES: MODI VS. BIDEN VS. TRUMP

The different approaches to peace negotiations reveal contrasting motivations and potential outcomes:

1.  Modi's recognition-focused diplomacy: India's approach, seeking primarily diplomatic recognition as a global peacemaker rather than material gains, might have allowed for more flexible negotiating positions. With fewer vested interests in specific outcomes beyond achieving peace itself, India could have facilitated discussions less encumbered by external agendas.

2.  Biden administration's approach: The current U.S. administration has approached the conflict through the lens of broader competition with Russia and the defence of the international order. This framework, while principled in many respects, may have made compromise more difficult by elevating the conflict's symbolic importance beyond the immediate interests of Ukraine itself.

3.  The emerging Trump approach: The Trump administration appears to have developed a different framework for negotiations that involves greater accommodation of Russian interests, potentially in exchange for concessions in other areas, particularly regarding China. This transactional approach reflects President Trump's business-oriented negotiating style and broader strategic priorities.

PUTIN'S CALCULATION AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCE

President Putin's decision-making appears responsive to different types of influence:

1.  Personal relationships vs. institutional pressure: President Putin has historically shown greater flexibility when engaged through personal relationships (as with PM Modi) than when facing institutional pressure from Western governments. This suggests India's approach might have found receptive ground in Moscow.

2.  Material concessions vs. principle-based demands: The Russian leadership has demonstrated more willingness to engage with concrete proposals addressing specific security concerns than with demands based primarily on international norms. This reality favours negotiators willing to engage in pragmatic trade-offs.

3.  The China factor: Russia's growing reliance on China presents both challenges and opportunities for peace negotiations. Trump's apparent willingness to address Russian concerns partly in exchange for positioning against China introduces a new dynamic that wasn't present in earlier negotiation frameworks

.

UKRAINE'S CALCULATION: WESTERN SUPPORT VS. PEACE TERMS

Ukraine's response to various peace initiatives reflects difficult calculations about:

1.  The reliability of American support: Continued military and financial support from America has been crucial for Ukraine's resistance. Any peace initiative that might jeopardize this support presents significant risks, potentially explaining hesitation about India's initiatives.

2.  Territorial concessions vs. long-term security: Ukraine faces the painful dilemma of potentially accepting territorial losses to end current hostilities versus holding out for more favourable terms that better secure its future sovereignty.

3.  Negotiating leverage and timing: The perception that time might favour either side has influenced willingness to negotiate. When Ukraine believed momentum was in its favour, incentives to accept compromise diminished; conversely, shifting battlefield conditions may now create different calculations.

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

In retrospect, India's peace initiative represented a potential path with distinct advantages:

1.  A broker seeking recognition, not territory: India's primary motivation of diplomatic recognition and enhanced global standing meant its proposals would likely focus on achievable peace rather than extracting specific concessions from either side.

2.  Modi's ability to influence Putin: The personal relationship between these leaders offered a channel for persuasion that might have yielded more favourable terms than more adversarial approaches.

3.  Opportunity for face-saving compromises: A mediator without direct involvement in the conflict could have crafted proposals allowing both sides to claim certain victories while making necessary compromises.

LOOKING FORWARD: THE TRUMP FACTOR

The new negotiating framework that has emerged from the White House:

1.  Transactional diplomacy: Trump's approach to foreign policy tends toward transactional agreements rather than principle-based positions, potentially creating space for compromise but raising questions about the durability of any resulting agreement.

2.  The Russia-China calculation: Trump's apparent desire to limit Russia-China cooperation may lead to concessions toward Russia on Ukraine in exchange for Russian distancing from China. This introduces complex global considerations beyond the immediate conflict.

3.  Economic vs. territorial focus: President Trump's business background suggests potential emphasis on economic aspects of any settlement, possibly including reconstruction, energy arrangements, and sanctions relief rather than focusing exclusively on territorial control.

CONCLUSION: THE HIGH COST OF DIPLOMATIC MISSTEPS

• Ukraine's reluctance to fully embrace India's peace initiatives now stands as a critical strategic miscalculation with far-reaching consequences. As the war continues to exact its devastating toll, the window of opportunity that Prime Minister Modi's unique relationship with President Putin presented has narrowed significantly. What Ukraine once might have achieved through India's good offices—a mediator seeking only diplomatic recognition rather than territorial or material gain—has given way to a starkly different negotiating landscape.

  
  

• President Trump's administration has now implemented its own approach to the conflict, one driven by transactional pragmatism rather than idealistic principles. This shift fundamentally alters Ukraine's position at the negotiating table. Where Modi might have influenced Putin through personal diplomacy without extracting costs from Ukraine, Trump's framework appears to accommodate Russian interests partly to secure cooperation against China—a global chess move in which Ukraine risks becoming merely a pawn.

  
  

• The harsh reality is that opportunities in geopolitical conflicts, once missed, rarely return in the same form. Ukraine now faces the consequences of having aligned too closely with a single-track Western approach under the Biden administration, which prioritized principle over pragmatism. As battlefield positions harden and international resolve wavers, the terms available today are undoubtedly less favourable than those that might have been secured when India extended its hand.

  
  

• This case stands as a powerful reminder that in the brutal calculus of war and peace, understanding the true motivations of potential mediators is essential. Partners seeking primarily recognition and diplomatic prestige—as India was—often offer more favourable paths to resolution than great powers with complex geopolitical agendas. For nations caught in conflict, the ability to recognize such opportunities when they appear, rather than when they have passed, may ultimately determine not just the terms of peace, but whether meaningful peace can be achieved at all.

  
  

• As Ukraine navigates its challenging path forward under President Trump's new framework, the shadow of what might have been had PM Modi's initiative been embraced will linger—a sobering lesson in the consequences of diplomatic opportunities recognized too late.