The West’s Deepening Divide: Aid to Ukraine, Peace with Russia, and Global Realignments of India, China, and Asia

Introduction

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe but has also exposed significant fissures within Western alliances, particularly between the United States and European nations. As the war approaches a potential conclusion, debates intensify over the appropriate balance between continued military aid to Ukraine and pursuing diplomatic avenues with Russia. Simultaneously, major global players like China and India are formulating their strategies in response to these developments, further complicating the international response to the crisis.

Western Divisions: Aid to Ukraine vs. Peace with Russia

Recent events have highlighted a growing divide within Western nations regarding their approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. A notable incident underscoring this rift was the heated exchange in the Oval Office between U.S. President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance. The confrontation arose from Zelensky's rejection of a peace proposal perceived as aligning too closely with Russian interests, leading to strained U.S.-Ukraine relations, and raising concerns about the future of American military support to Kyiv.

In response to these tensions, European leaders have rallied in support of Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron has cautioned against any form of "surrender" in Ukraine, emphasizing that peace should not compromise the nation's sovereignty. Macron's stance reflects a broader European apprehension that yielding to Russian demands could set a dangerous precedent, undermining international norms, and emboldening aggressive actions elsewhere.

The United Kingdom has also demonstrated unwavering support for Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, along with other European leaders, has committed to deploying troops to Ukraine, urging fellow NATO members to bolster their defence commitments. This collective European resolve underscores a determination to maintain a robust stance against Russian aggression, even as the U.S. exhibits signs of a more conciliatory approach.

However, this unity is not absolute. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia have shown support for the U.S. administration's more pro-Russia stance, reflecting internal divisions within Europe regarding the optimal strategy to address the conflict. In addition, both Budapest and Bratislava have threatened to block EU statements in solidarity of Kyiv at the key summit called by European Council President Antonio Costa on 6 March. These differing perspectives complicate the formulation of a cohesive Western policy, potentially weakening the collective bargaining position of NATO and the European Union.

European Alignment: Navigating the NATO and EU Landscape

As the war draws to a close, European countries within the EU and NATO are faced with critical decisions about their strategic alignments. The internal debate centers on whether to continue providing military aid to Ukraine or to pivot towards diplomatic engagements with Russia.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has advised President Zelensky to mend ties with the U.S., highlighting concerns about the alliance's cohesion. Former NATO commander James Stavridis has gone further, suggesting that the current crisis could signal the end of NATO as it currently exists, proposing the formation of a new "European Treaty Organisation." These statements reflect deep anxieties about the future of transatlantic security arrangements and the need for Europe to reassess its defense posture.

In response to these challenges, European nations are contemplating increased defense spending and greater strategic autonomy. The perception of a wavering U.S. commitment has accelerated discussions about Europe taking a more independent role in its security affairs, reducing reliance on American military support. This shift could lead to a redefined NATO, with European members assuming greater responsibility for collective defense.

Norway’s Oil Decision: A Symbol of Growing US-Europe Tensions

Further highlighting the growing divide between the U.S. and Europe, a Norwegian firm recently decided to halt oil supplies to the U.S. following Trump's clash with Zelensky. This move is seen as a symbolic gesture reflecting broader European concerns over America’s shifting foreign policy priorities. European energy firms are increasingly wary of aligning too closely with Washington's uncertain strategies, particularly given the U.S.'s mixed signals on Ukraine.

This development comes amid broader economic and political recalibrations within the West, as European nations seek to lessen their dependence on U.S. energy markets while reinforcing intra-European solidarity in the face of American unpredictability.

Asian Concerns: U.S. Commitment to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea

The shifting U.S. stance on Ukraine has raised alarms in Asia, particularly among key American allies such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. These nations fear that the U.S.'s reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine’s defense could foreshadow a diminished commitment to their own security in the face of Chinese and North Korean threats.

Taiwan, which relies heavily on U.S. military support to deter potential Chinese aggression, is particularly concerned. The perceived inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy has fuelled debates in Taipei about the need to enhance indigenous defence capabilities rather than relying solely on American assurances. This is despite events such as the omission of the US’s stated policy of ‘not supporting Taiwan’s independence’ from the State Department website under the Trump administration which has been interpreted as Washington’s intent of more robust defence collaboration with the island nation in return for Taipei’s increased investment in US.

Similarly, Japan and South Korea are increasingly investing in their own military capabilities while seeking to deepen regional security cooperation, anticipating potential shifts in U.S. strategic priorities. Like Taipei, it can be said that both Tokyo and Seoul have not completely bought in the idea of the US pursuing a quick end to the Ukraine crisis as a sign of increasing Washington pivot or attention to the Indo- Pacific and countering China. Such apprehensions from America’s Asian allies can be understood in the context of the unpredictability and transactional perspective on global affairs exhibited by the Trump administration.

China’s Strategic Calculations

China's position regarding the Ukraine-Russia conflict is characterized by a delicate balancing act, aiming to maintain its strategic partnership with Russia while mitigating potential repercussions on its global standing. The "no limits" partnership declared between Beijing and Moscow in 2021 underscores China's interest in countering U.S. influence. However, China's reluctance to actively mediate in the conflict stems from its desire to avoid entanglement in security responsibilities that could jeopardize its economic interests.

Beijing's cautious approach is also influenced by concerns about setting precedents that could affect its own territorial disputes, particularly regarding Taiwan. The potential for a U.S.-Russia rapprochement raises alarms in China, as it could alter the strategic calculus in the Asia-Pacific region.

Consequently, China continues to advocate for a political settlement to the Ukrainian crisis, emphasizing respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, while subtly criticizing Western alliances like NATO for exacerbating tensions. However, any division between Europe and the USA over Ukraine is being perceived within strategic circles in Beijing as an opportunity to increase Chinese influence and foothold in the European continent. This would allow China to wean Europe away from the US and disrupt the ‘anti- China’ alignment which brought the West together on earlier occasion. 

India’s Diplomatic Tightrope and Opportunity

India's response to the Ukraine-Russia conflict has been marked by a careful balancing act, reflecting its historical ties with Russia and its aspirations as a global leader. New Delhi has consistently abstained from UN resolutions condemning Russia's actions, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and diplomacy. India's stance is driven by its reliance on Russian military equipment and energy resources, as well as a strategic interest in maintaining a multipolar world order.

Despite Western pressure, India has continued to engage with Russia, increasing imports of discounted Russian oil and maintaining defense collaborations. At the same time, India has provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine and participated in international discussions aimed at resolving the conflict. This nuanced approach allows India to safeguard its national interests while positioning itself as a potential mediator in global conflicts. 

The deepening divide between the US and Europe has made it necessary for the latter to find new allies and strike partnerships on its terms with other similar major poles such as India. This was witnessed in the arrival of the EU delegation comprising of 27 Commissioners led by President Ursula von der Leyen herself on 28 February thereby highlighting the importance of Delhi in the eyes of Europe. Equally New Delhi also needs to strengthen its partnership with the EU not only for the benefits brought by close collaboration with the latter in areas such as defence, critical technologies, semiconductors, and green energy such as hydrogen but also to prevent Europe from fully falling into the Chinese embrace. All the while maintaining the partnerships with US and Russia respectively.    

Conclusion

The visible divide within the West over providing aid to Ukraine or pursuing peace with Russia underscores the complexities of contemporary geopolitics. European nations are grappling with the need to support Ukraine's sovereignty while managing internal disagreements and recalibrating their defense strategies. The pro-Russian tendencies of EU members such as Hungary and Slovakia and the decision of a Norwegian firm to halt oil supplies to the U.S. further exemplifies the deepening transatlantic rift. Meanwhile, China and India, as influential global players, are navigating these dynamics to preserve their strategic interests without alienating key partners. As the conflict evolves, the international community's ability to reconcile these divergent perspectives will be crucial in shaping a stable and secure post-war order.

 Anuraag Khaund is pursuing PhD in International Politics (IP), School of International Studies (SIS), Central University of Gujarat (CUG). He can be reached at khaundanuraag@gmail.com