The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interaction with the delegation from the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) on 16 January 2024. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, chaired the session.

Executive Summary

International developments in the last couple of years, mainly the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent Israel-Hamas conflict have raised concerns over global peace and security. These issues have highlighted the inability of international organisations to cooperate on matters of growing relevance in the post-pandemic era. Two factors which are crucial to understanding these developments are – the relationship between the former superpowers and China’s growing influence. The interaction between the delegation from OSW and scholars from MP-IDSA facilitated a fruitful exchange of Indian and Polish views on such matters of importance, providing valuable insights for both parties.

Detailed Report

In the opening remarks, the Chair, Amb. Sujan Chinoy began by briefly addressing India’s perspective on the unfolding geopolitics around the globe, identifying various divisions, which for instance, have led to weaponisation of trade and technology. The nature of power contestation in recent times and the inability of the United Nations (UN) to deliver on issues of development, peace, and security was also stressed upon. Further, he highlighted the difficulties in international institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) working collectively to develop consensus on issues of greater significance in post-pandemic times.

Amb. Chinoy also stated that the G20, under the Indian Presidency in 2023, was a “dream team”. He lauded the unanimous adoption of the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration. The grouping successfully focused on developmental, financial, and economic issues as it ought to, rather than being hindered by political matters, which do not fall in its ambit. It is also more inclusive in nature than the G7 as it comprises the members of the Quad, BRICS, IPSA and other such groupings.

Regarding the Russia-Ukraine War, the Chair referred to India’s special relations with Russia while also expressing India’s distress vis-à-vis the loss of lives since the start of the war. India has provided humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine and has engaged with both sides. Putting forth his viewpoint, the Chair mentioned that this war is likely to last a while.

Concerning recent developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, Amb. Chinoy stressed on India’s good relations with both Israel and Palestine and that it continues to send humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, including through the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA). Terrorism remains one of the key concerns for India, as the country has been on its receiving end for a long time. The Chair also expressed India’s concern over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the region, which is unlikely to end soon. He further added that Hamas has got deep roots in the region and that there is a likelihood that the Houthis, Hezbollah, or other nation-states, might get directly or indirectly embroiled in the conflict.

With growth and prosperity spreading to wider regions of Southeast Asia, South Asia and the littoral countries in the Indian Ocean, particularly the East Coast of Africa, Amb. Chinoy indicated that the notion of Indo-Pacific has replaced the Asia-Pacific. The former is a much clearer reflection of today’s changing balance of power. It is more inclusive, democratic, and in tune with the growing aspirations of a much wider arc of geographical space. Thus, the Indo-Pacific harbours the potential for a greater participatory and inclusive architecture.

Reflecting on the US-China tussle, Amb. Chinoy highlighted that the dialogue has resumed for the sake of stability, but relations will continue to manifest various tensions, as some fundamental discrepancies and divergences may arise. He believes that the Chinese are mindful of the potential derailment of their own long-term plans, were they to take any hasty decisions with regard to Taiwan or continue to exhibit the same level of unilateralism, militarization and aggressive behaviour.

Highlighting the growing engagement and a degree of mutual interdependence between Russia and China, the Chair averred that the Russian Federation is not very happy to play the role of an underdog all the time, to a country which has learnt virtually everything from the Russians in the past. He mentioned the difference in how Russia and China challenge the existing international order, where China influences the world order more directly. China is trying to curate parallel orders – for example, through the expansion of BRICS, New Development Bank of BRICS, or their own sovereign lending and banking institutions.

Wojciech Konończuk, Director of OSW, contributed to the discussion by highlighting Poland’s priorities in the European context. He mentioned that Poland’s viewpoint is different from India’s. This is mainly due to the difference in their geographical locations, leading to a difference in how both countries percieve recent international developments. It is essential for Poland to focus on the evolution of Russia-China relations. He emphasised that the Poles view the Russian invasion against Ukraine as a war with far reaching global consequences and called it an existential issue for Poland. He noted that the outcome of this war will have a direct impact on the order in the European continent as Russian ambitions go far beyond Ukraine. It is aimed at recovering parts of the former Soviet Union territory and for that it wants to destroy the international order which created Eastern Europe from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr. Konończuk agreed that this war will not end soon, even though the initial Russian plan was to end the war in a couple of weeks.

Marek Menkiszak, Head of Russian Department at OSW, noted that Russian policies have a deep interlink between Russia’s internal system and its foreign security policy, which are focused on regime survival. The Russian regime, which went from half-democratic to the current neo-totalitarian, believes that the increase of their sphere of influence in the post-Soviet region is a matter of regime survival. According to Mr. Menkiszak, Russia believes that the West – led by the US – is an existential threat to the regime. Thus, the former is trying to diminish the latter to develop a post-western world order, and is trying to change the status quo using its military capabilities. In achieving this goal, Russia sees China as a necessary ally and aims to avoid any conflict with China. Moscow also seems to believe that making it an indispensable partner to Beijing will create a situation wherein they will have strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Beijing; while enjoying the gains from US-China conflict.

Jakub Jakóbowski, Deputy Director at OSW, shared his insights on how the Chinese view their relationship with Russia, since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to him, the Chinese believe that Russians can achieve their goals, but at a much higher cost. This will lead to a diminished Russia in Russia-China relations and would establish a precedent to undermine the US based security system by force. In this, Russia is ready to play second to China as it sees China as the lone partner in its fight against the West. He also highlighted that one must focus on China’s original plan of action and not get carried away by the opinion it voices on the world stage. He ended by putting forth the question of – how to engage with India in dialogue and what kind of strategic choices might India make in the Indo-Pacific and European theatre.

Responding to some points raised by the speakers, Amb. Chinoy highlighted that regime survival is not a characteristic of authoritarian states alone but that of democracies too. Any government can be called a regime. However, in this discourse some identify regimes with what they think are more authoritarian states. He also mentioned that global orders cannot be created nor dismantled easily. It is not possible to forge a post-World War II world order, which will be very different from what we have today. A new world order by Russia might not be possible without the destruction of all.

India does not challenge the international order that has been in place since World War II. It is more concerned with the lack of reforms. According to Amb. Chinoy, China is also not seeking the reversal of this order altogether, as it has been a major beneficiary of the same. In his view, Russians are in a reactive mode, whereas the Chinese are in a proactive mode in terms of their actions and policies in international relations. He also urged that we must not forgo the possibility of a reset of US-Russia relations, as there are greater structural similarities in US-Russia relations than Russia-China. In fact, the chances of a post-Putin Russia turning democratic are statistically far greater than that of China, owing to the Chinese Confucius thinking and the communist party.

With regard to India-China, Amb. Chinoy mentioned that India has dealt with military threats to its sovereignty and territorial integrity on its own. It is also less likely to directly join in any conflicts in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea in the near future.

Witold Rodkiewicz, Senior Fellow at OSW, pointed out that Russian elites have a completely different view of China. According to him, the Russians admire China. They believe that China managed to do something that Russia failed at. Earlier we have seen Russia turn towards the west, when it befriended the US and now it is turning towards the east, befriending China. Russia cannot afford to have problems with its crucial ally, like it did during the cold war times, thereby deciding to make itself indispensable to China. In all of this, we need to realise that in current times, Russia ties Europe with the US or the western theatre.

Q&A

The interaction was followed by a Q&A session, in which questions regarding Russia-China relations, India-Russia relations, polarisation of Europe, Russian and Chinese role in Central Asia, and the Polish Vs European debate on China, were posed.

The Polish delegation members answered different questions, based on their expertise. Theypointed out that the strategic interests of Russia and China are much bigger than any tensions between them. Initially the Russians tried to oppose the BRI but when they couldn’t anymore, they joined it. The Russia-China partnership is based on the need of the hour and the European mindset sees this partnership as immune to any third-party intrusions.

Central Asia is a working condominium, where Russia has accepted the growing economic influence of China. They also emphasised on Russia’s three strategic goals in Europe – to gain strategic control over the post-Soviet area, to create a security buffer zone in Central Europe, and to drastically reduce US influence in Europe.

The delegation members alsomentioned that Poland does not have an independent Indo-Pacific strategy. It actively contributes to European efforts in the region and wants to do as much as possible. The delegation emphasised on the need for India and Europe, especially Poland, to engage more actively, given the Indo-Pacific theatre sees a convergence of interests of all the three parties. 

Report has been prepared by Ms. Anusua Ganguly, Intern, Europe and Eurasia Centre.