Developments in Russia-Ukraine War
With the vacuous signaling from the Alaska Summit buried firmly under the carpet, the war has seen a decisive intensification, and an acceptance on the part of Europe that confrontation with Russia may be inevitable. Two trends have stood out:
First, Russia has intensified its incursions into and violations of the airspace of other European countries, such as Poland, Estonia, Romania and in the neutral airspace over the Baltic Sea. These incursions have come within rapid succession of each other, suggesting a deliberate pattern of escalation by Russia. There is little doubt that this emboldened attitude of Russia is a direct upshot of the Alaska Summit through which Trump lent legitimacy to Putin and diluted the incentive to move towards a ceasefire. Whether this show of strength by Russia will lead to a larger escalation is yet to be seen, but, for now, it indicates that ceasefire has been firmly put on the backburner. The war has now entered the domain of psychological warfare where Russia, through its alliances in the Global South with countries like China, and through its military display, is seeking to disconcert Europe.
Its recent provocations show how Russia is committing itself to a risky strategy of provoking North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in a bid to show that NATO’s weak and dispersed response to the Russian transgressions underlie its lack of commitment to fully confront Russia. At any point, this Russian gambit, if taken too far, may backfire, leading to a rapid escalation.
Second, in terms of technological superiority, the intensification of war has also led to rapid changes in Russian and Ukrainian technological capacities. While Ukraine had, over a period of time, mastered the niche domain of cheap drone manufacturing, Russia has also been aggressively expanding its defence industrial base in these technologies aggressively, despite the strain the war has put on its resources. Up until recently, the Russian drones and missiles that were entering Ukraine were being shot down by Ukraine, thereby minimizing the extent of damage. However, the Russians have now upgraded their strategy by developing drones and ballistic missiles that are easily able to dodge and defeat the US Patriot air defence systems being used by Ukraine. The new Russian long-range missiles follow a typical trajectory before diverting and plunging into a steep manoeuver which can evade Ukraine’s air defence systems. Though this new strategy, Russia has been able to damage Ukraine’s key military facilities and critical infrastructure ahead of the winters. In September, Ukraine’s missile interception rate plummeted from 37 percent to just 6 percent.
These recent trends reinforce the necessity of European and Ukrainian rearmament. The intensification of the war is happening at a time when Europe’s key defence ally, the US, has begun to view Europe through a narrow, instrumental lens, and the onus is increasingly falling on Europe to take responsibility for its own security. After relying on American and adopting an uncertain posture against Russia over the last three years, Europe does not have much space left to manoeuver. It is now waking up to the reality that Ukraine is its first line of defence, and that the possibility of the fall of Ukraine will herald an inevitable blow to the European security architecture. While Europe is now aggressively expanding its defence production, its continuing internal political weaknesses and external confusion are preventing it from pursuing a determined, unidirectional policy. It is still hoping for a ceasefire, is still playing defensive with Russia, and is still prioritizing economy over defence. This prevarication is proving to be its undoing.
Technology and Warfare
The impact of technological advancements on warfare techniques has broken several new grounds, especially with the rapid deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and China appears to have taken a lead in most of these advancements. Till now, the debate on technology and warfare has mainly centered around the question of how technologies can be used to physically subvert the adversary’s systems to gain advantage in warfare. However, the debate is now shifting to a new, more comprehensive ground, with China again taking the lead. The latest research within Chinese military circles is around how the very traditional systems and concepts of warfare can be transmuted to a psychological domain.
In this context, the idea of dissipative warfare is increasingly gaining ground in Chinese research, although the idea continues to be largely alien to other countries. Dissipative warfare is a form of intelligentized warfare based on deterrence and minimum bloodshed, but resulting in political, economic and diplomatic strangulation. It has developed out of the traditional concept of attritional warfare, where the side that can sustain its conversion of material resources (such as industrial capacity, population, resources etc.) into battlefield advantages will be the one that is ultimately victorious. With the rise of AI, these traditional factors which constitute national power now largely stand discounted, for at least two key reasons:
First, the foundation of warfare has shifted from the conventional material resources of national power to other domains such as information flows, AI, and other network structures. Further, even the bases of war have moved from traditional domains like air, sea and land to integrated domains, in which information becomes key.
Second, the target of warfare has shifted from destruction of adversary’s physical capacities in the form of soldiers or battlefield weapons or factories to more effectively targeting their warfighting capabilities. This means instead of physical destruction, the adversary would be in a state of ‘asymmetric paralysis’, a state of dysfunction which would be achieved within the enemy ranks with minimal cost.
Thus, dissipative warfare is based on a novel idea, made possible by recent technological advances, that victory in warfare will probably not belong to the side with the largest material stockpile of material resources but to the side which can maintain its own internal order while generating disruptions within the adversary’s camps from inside, at a minimal cost. It is a form of warfare which not only does not entail bloodshed but can be continuously undertaken during either active wartime or peacetime. This idea perhaps signals the first of its kind comprehensive integration of AI in military and represents an advance over the sporadic attempts made till now. Given the rising debates over it, China will likely look at its military integration in the near future.
Israel-Hamas Peace Plan
The 20-point peace proposal put forward by the United States for bringing an end to the Gaza war represents a significant turning point in the war. The proposal has already been accepted, in principle, by Israel, while Hamas has also conditionally accepted it. If implemented well, the proposal would not only bring an end to the war but also change the governance of Gaza in a way which would effectively prevent attacks such as the one perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th, 2023, from happening again. The following are some of the key features of the deal:
First, the very starting point of the deal hinges on an interesting stipulation – that within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting the agreement, all hostages, alive or dead, will be returned to Israel. Only once the hostages are released will Israel then release up to 2000 Palestinians detained after October 7th, 2023. If Hamas fails to comply with this condition, Israel will continue the war and ‘finish the job.’
Second, the next significant part of the deal is that Hamas will have to disarm and surrender. If it surrenders, its members will be given a safe passage out of Gaza. Further, those Hamas members who commit to ‘peaceful co-existence’ and ‘decommission their weapons’ will be given amnesty. This has become a major sticking point for Hamas, as they have, till now, refused to decommission their weapons. Doing so would mean the effective end of Hamas.
Third, an ‘international stabilization force’, as an interim arrangement, will be established in Gaza by the US, Arab and other international partners. The ISF will mainly ensure stability in Gaza, by training the locals and by preventing any arms from entering. It will also regulate the flow of aid into Gaza. It will, thus, act as a law-and-order agency.
Fourth, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) will gradually withdraw in a phased manner, as the ISF establishes itself. However, the IDF will retain its presence in a ‘security perimeter’ in Gaza. This security perimeter likely implies a buffer zone that Israel will continue to maintain inside Gaza even in the future to ensure that attacks such as the one of October 7th, 2023, do not recur.
Fifth, for the future ‘governance’ of Gaza, a ‘temporary transitional governance’ arrangement will be established. It will be led by a ‘technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee’, and will be responsible for day-to-day services. It will be supervised by the ‘Board of Peace’ headed by Trump himself and will include other members and leaders of countries. By heading this Board – and by also including former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in it – Trump has appointed himself the in-charge of reconstruction in Gaza. The presence of Blair – whose organization had floated the early ‘Gaza riviera’ project idea – shows that the possibility of commercial development of Gaza to advance Trump’s business interests might become more concrete.
Sixth, uninterrupted flow of aid into Gaza will be permitted once the deal begins to be implemented. However, this flow of aid will be done without the interference of the United Nations and human rights organizations like the Red Crescent.
The overall peace proposal is, thus, a mixture of hard realism in favour of Israel and advances Trump’s potential commercial interests. Trump’s vast business interests in the Middle East are being headed by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Gaza is also being viewed from this lens. Despite the presence of Trump’s private advantage – commercial as well as his quest for a Noble Peace Prize – the overall deal does provide a clear framework for resolving this war. If followed through, it will effectively ensure that Hamas and other forms of terrorism will be permanently eliminated from Gaza, the Iranian presence will be completely wiped out, and Gaza itself will be transformed to an unrecognizable degree. It will also lead to the resumption of Israel’s normalization of relations with Arab countries, which was started by Trump in his first term and has been aggressively pushed forward in the second term as well. All this works to Israel’s advantage.
At the same time, it is also worth remembering that while the US is initiating the peace process, it was Israel itself which shaped the background for such a process to be initiated. For over two years, Israel has worked against all odds and against strident international ostracization to eliminate Hamas. It has permanently damaged Hamas, re-established complete control over West Bank, reduced Gaza to rubble (as it had promised after the 2023 attack), permanently handicapped Hezbollah, repelled the Houthis and asserted its power in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Its twelve-day war with Iran showed that it is ready to absorb any number of losses to save its national prestige. Even though some European countries like France, Spain, Portugal and others as well as other major western countries like Britain and Canada sought to push Israel into a corner by recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israel continued its mission. Further, the country had already dismissed the United Nations long back. Thus, it was against all odds that Israel has been spiritedly fighting.
However, one of the major turning points in the war came with Israel’s bombing of Hamas members in Doha, Qatar. The direct Israeli attacks in the heart of a major Arab power was just the trigger that acted as a major shock therapy for Qatar and for other Arab states. Prior to that, Qatar had always been notoriously infamous for shielding terrorists, not just from Hamas, but also from anti-Arab Muslim Brotherhood. It was also famous for playing a balancing game between Iran and other Arab countries. Due to its extensive contacts with Iran and its terrorists as well as with other Sunni Arab states and due to its vast gas and oil wealth, Qatar had imagined itself to be quite powerful. In recent times, it had been the major intermediary hosting talks between Israel and Hamas for over a year, and during Trump’s visit had lavishly bestowed gifts on him.
Israeli strikes on Qatar fulfilled the job of shattering the Qatari glasshouse, which even the collective Arab blockade of Qatar in 2017 could not achieve. The unprecedented strikes in Qatar were accompanied by Isarel’s message that it would pursue its enemies inside any country that shielded them. Israel had conveyed this message to China as well, since it is another country that, like Russia, became famous for supporting Hamas and for bringing together the Palestinian factions on a common ground. Israeli strikes on Qatar were the trigger that brought Hamas to the table and laid a fertile ground for Trump’s peace plan to get through. Otherwise, it would have fallen flat like numerous other peace deals over the last two years. After the strikes, Qatar was the one that pressurized Hamas to accept the deal and threatened to withdraw protection if it did not do so, which the terrorist entity is now doing.
Israel’s approach is, perhaps, the most instructive illustration of the fact that peace can only be built on foundations of strength. In today’s world of wars, renewed militarization and rise of terrorists as state proxies, Israel lays out a path to show the real meaning of victory and strength.
Saudi-Pakistan Defence Pact
In recent times, thanks to Trump’s personal interventions in a complete contravention of the American foreign policy over the last two decades, Pakistan has regained its prime importance as the world’s broker. While Trump began to explicitly court Pakistan after the latter buttressed his claims of bringing about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and recommended his name for the Nobel Peace Prize, his interests in Pakistan saw a simultaneous deepening due to his family business’s expansion in the domain of cryptocurrency – until now a domain of shady financial practices in which Pakistan became an early player. The relationship received a further fillip when Pakistan pledged its critical mineral resource wealth to Trump – another area where the US is aggressively expanding in a bid to counter China’s technological influence.
Besides the new growing bonhomie between US and Pakistan, the latter already has a close military relationship with China and is aggressively seeking to expand its relations with Russia. Its relationship with other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE and Turkey, were already deeply interwoven since its formation. More recently, Israel’s attack on Qatar and the immense insecurity it generated among Arab countries led to a quick signing of a mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The pact is significant because it states that an attack on any one of these countries will be considered an attack on the other. The unsaid implication is that the pact obligates each of these countries to come to the other’s defence through military means. This may have several implications:
First, it instantly raises Pakistan’s already rising profile in the region. Since Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nuclear capabilities, this development signals an extension of Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia, as stated by Pakistan’s foreign minister. In the wake of Israel’s attack on a key Arab country which was not involved in the war, the pact becomes a way for Saudi Arabia to secure itself through an extended nuclear deterrent. It is also directed against Iran – Saudi Arabia’s key adversary in the region – which has not abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons and has the technology to realize it.
Second, it brings back into focus the idea of an Islamic NATO, especially if the possibility of the extension of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent to other Muslim countries becomes more concrete. If the peace deal with Israel follows through, this possibility may be minimized, but there is no certainty. In a world of rising insecurity, increasing western intervention in the Arab world, rising Israeli power and sharpening religious conflict, such a possibility does exist. If an Islamic NATO materializes even among some Muslim countries, it will signal a formidable unity, underpinned by Pakistani nuclear umbrella, and might pit the Muslim world more concretely against the non-Muslim adversaries.
Finally, the pact will affect India, but not to a very great extent. One of the major advantages here is that India-Pakistan conflict is more of a regional problem which has been easy to contain, due to lack of desire on part of both countries to escalate as well as the swift backdoor pacification by other countries. India has never initiated an attack against Pakistan, and its only red line is terrorism. Since Pakistan is now too deeply intertwined with both US and China, it no longer has the independence to act irresponsibly and risk another war. Other Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, have also expanded relations with India swiftly over the past decade. These relations are no longer limited to the passive domain of migration, but now also have active technological and economic dimensions. Any petty misadventures by Pakistan would be sought to be checked even by the Muslim countries.
Despite these present circumstances, India would perhaps have already recognized how fast geopolitical realities on the ground change these days. One factor alone can change the entire scenario rapidly. Therefore, India would do well to not rely on existing factors, and should assume the worst possibilities to equip itself accordingly.
