Trump-Zelensky spat is a moment of truth for India and EU to start a new chapter in geopolitics

Is President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine having an Indira Gandhi moment? That is what I asked myself as the world watched the ugly spat he had with President Donald Trump at the Oval Office of the White House in full view of international television crews.  

It does not get more dramatic than this in diplomacy. Still, India’s prime minister nearly had such a moment in November 1971 when another Republican, Richard Nixon, a softer bully version of Trump, was unsympathetic to her appeal that the flight of millions of refugees from the then East Pakistan was an international problem. US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had then said Nixon’s comments on that meeting with the Indian prime minister were “not always printable.” 

But then, Mrs G had signed a friendship treaty with the then Soviet Union in August, 1971, and aided by Moscow’s assurance, stood up to Bully Nixon’s 7th Fleet of the US Navy, as India liberated East Pakistan that became Bangladesh in December 1971 after a 14-day war with Pakistan. 

Sadly, Zelensky has had neither the sagacity that Ms Gandhi had nor her courage – and is caught in a position of sheer military and geopolitical imbalance. He needs diplomatic help like hell as Moscow and Washington gang up on the same side, like two toughies in a street fight towering over a weaker man. 

Also read: In Trump-Zelensky fight over Ukraine, the winner is Vladimir Putin 

Where did things go wrong? Look no further than the European Union which has been backing Ukraine without studying the consequences of an expensive military engagement. Ukraine’s location, as well as the fact that it is geographically contiguous with its former Soviet Union mate Russia, reminds us that discretion is the better part of valour, and wars are a costly business when there is utter asymmetry in military balance. 

Trump’s defiant diplomacy (if one can use that word for his bullying style) is such that he wants a U-turn in American diplomacy to spite the Democrats he dethroned. On his part, there is absolutely no hypocrisy, a dubious virtue that diplomacy is usually blessed with. This means he wants a minerals-for-peace deal that fell apart as Zelensky was shown out from the Oval Office. 

I would like to think that unlike President Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the current US administration, influential nations of the European Union and India have some kind of morality in diplomacy that respects national sovereignty, although they do function under the old maxim that nations primarily function to serve their respective interests.  

It is perhaps time for the EU and India to think together on Ukraine and other issues, including international trade as Trumpism gains ground. Trump wants to steamroller the idea of a Palestine state in Gaza, impose tariffs as a coercive tool in international trade (with no one spared) and play an insensitive bully on Ukraine. He may be justified in saving US taxpayer money as he talks of peace in the Russia- Ukraine war, but his style and threats are leaving an uneasy void that requires diplomatic action. India has not been spared from Trump’s tariff threats – though there is nothing concrete on the table yet. But you never know. 

While it is true that India is officially a strategic partner of the US, it cannot ignore either history or its long-term interests as a responsible world power. To that end, an increased level of engagement with the EU and Japan, besides a select few West Asian states, may be a good thing. In its current state, Ukraine and EU may also appreciate that. 

Also Read: Trump 2.0: Arrogance, election interference, censorship hypocrisy

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government needs to allow for diplomatic engagements that help its role as a new-age mediator – not a Trump-style compromised arbiter. 

Hours ahead of the Trump-Zelensky spat at the White House, it was interesting to see European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen saying in New Delhi that India and European Union  were discussing ways to strengthen “security and defence partnership”. 

“It is time to take our EU-India Strategic Partnership to the next level. For our own security and our prosperity. For the common global challenges that we face. And for the benefit of our respective regions and our partners around the world,” she said. 

Only the extraordinarily naïve would think her words had nothing to do with Putin, Trump or an expansionist China as she spoke of “common global challenges.” 

What does this mean for Indian diplomacy? In plain-speak, it is time for India to recollect the Indira Gandhi moment of 1971 and gently apply some course corrections so that it could emerge as a principled interlocutor with a spine, not just a party wanting to eat the cake and have it too. 

I am quite sure the UK and EU, with their own strange mix of immigration threats, technological advances and an ageing population in several parts, can see eye to eye with India on a host of initiatives that reflect shared interests in various dimensions including terrorism, multiculturalism and liberal democracy. Global security, as distinct from free trade agreements, now has to be a critical component. For this to truly happen, India has to look beyond short-term interests and call out wrong acts, in whatever language possible, instead of sounding wimpish. 

I know it is not easy. Being Vishwaguru was never easy and is not going to be easy – unless that term is meant for domestic electoral consumption and not as a true reflection of civilisational chutzpah.