Chinese in a nutcracker on Ukraine?

One of the most curious developments around the Ukrainian crisis has been the Chinese response to it. The Middle Kingdom is usually quite reticent in joining issues on affairs that it is not directly involved in. But in this case, quite curiously China seemed to be quite vocal in pledging support to Russia. While it abstained in the UN Security Council resolution yesterday, a bit of a blow-back to its usual stance on such issues, the general narratives have been quite supportive of Russia.

Now, Russia and China are not natural allies. Not by a long shot. Besides having fought a border war in 1969, one of the abiding concerns of demographically declining Russia is the vulnerability of its sparsely populated Eastern frontiers to Chinese aggression.

In this case though, China and Russia are joined in being leery of "colour revolutions", ostensibly sponsored by the West. But this is more than just a regime change affair. In the case of Ukraine, the story unfolding is also of one state (Russia) encouraging a region (Crimea) of another state (Ukraine) to break off, citing largely ethnic reasons. For China the principle being established is hugely problematic, as this gives credibility to what China terms as "splitist" tendencies in Tibet and Xinjiang. Both have uncanny parallels to Crimea - regions populated by ethnic minorities (Indic Buddhists in Tibet and Uighur muslims in Xinjiang) claiming to be persecuted by the national majority and state. If Crimea has a right to break-off using a referendum, why shouldnt Tibet? Or Xinjiang?

This is where the red line emerges for China. Much as it dislikes Western sponsorship of colour revolutions, it would be suicidal to side with the Russians in this case.

There is one more, not insignificant issue. Ukraine has been a major supplier to the Chinese defence industrial complex, especially in terms of IP of critical Soviet technologies. Bulk of the aeroengines in new Chinese aircraft, for example trace their origins to Ukrainian assistance.

India has the same issue - it will be difficult to endorse Russian action in Crimea without being set up for uncomfortable questions on Kashmir. Hence, the silence of India on the affair is undertstandable.

But the vocal nature of the Chinese hasnt been, and maybe the nutcracker is creating a bit of a climbdown now. But all around Asia, there would be lessons learnt on the China's behaviour.

Ukraine - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Essentially, more things change more they remain the same! The recent fracas (yes, as of now its still only at the stage of a fracas) in Ukraine re-establishes the old dictums of high power play. A few pointers are in order.

One, Ukraine isnt Finland, though that is precisely the instance that even the great sage, Henry Kissinger gave in his analysis yesterday. Simply put, Finland doesnt have a large minority of ethnic Russians in their midst!

Two, Crimea isnt just another plot of neighbouring land for Russia. Sevastopol is the only warm weather port that Russia has. For a large, and largely landlocked country, access to a warm weather port has been a multi-generation endeavour for Russian rulers starting from Peter the great. It would be quite naive for a modern day Peter (Putin) to give that up.

Three, Western outrage over democracy et al are, to put it mildly, quite irrelevant to the situation. Such outrage rhetoric often gets mistaken for capability or intent for action. But as the Hungarian partisans in 1956, or Alexander Dubcek (of Czechoslovakia) in 1964, or indeed the Chechen rebels in the '90s found out, rhetoric over human rights, democracy etc isnt the same as putting one of the super carriers into the Mediterranean for action!

For the Ukrainians, unfortunately the choice is between rock and a hard place. It can either allow Crimea to be their Sudetenland. Or they can try and evolve a modus vivendi with Russia, with an Alsace-Lorraine type arrangement on Crimea. As Kissinger rightly recognises, the Ukrainians have little history of governing themselves - till 1991 they had been ruled by various assortments of Russian rulers for nearly 500 years. they havent finessed the art of negotiating with a stronger power without breaking into a major confrontation.

It is here that the West needs to help. There is some talk of the US launching a "gas war" against Russia, using its new-found shale reserves. Laughable proposition, given by people unaware of or unwilling to look at the basics of gas economics. Russia supplies gas to Ukraine and rest of Europe through a pipeline (owned by Gazprom!). For the US to supply gas to Europe across the Atlantic would require the same to be transported in large LNG tankers. the price of piped gas is about a third that of shipped gas. the idea of a contest is about the same as an Indian I-League club trying its skills against an EPL club!

Instead of such Quixotic ideas, West can lend its skills in negotiations to the Ukrainians, while maintaining a level of diplomatic pressure on Russia, so that a balanced modus vivendi can be arrived at.

How that can be done, and when - we will see in the next few weeks.