you're watching an NDTV special focus as the war rages in Ukraine, questions over how it's gonna play itself out and what it means for the world. Order you, Berra. You answer that, then. Fareed Zakaria. He's a Washington Post columnist. He's an author and broadcaster and a foremost commentator on world affairs. And he joins me from America. Thank you very much indeed for his Zakaria, for joining us like me to start first with a kind of big picture broad brush question when we look at what has happened today at today's escalation, where Russian forces attacked a Ukrainian nuclear plant almost created a kind of doomsday scenario. Things are things are not going well. I think that's exactly right. Clearly, things are not going according to the Russian plan. We know this because the Russians planned on a lightning strike that would get them to keep that would allow them to taken for all. Presumably, they're hoped that the army, which would depose the president, This is what Putin called for, that the people would would rise up and support it. None of this happened. The army that was sent in initially had very, very few supplies and so now they are trying to resupply the army's. They were trying to take control of the key military centres, the airbase outside of Kiev, so that they could then start lending Russian troops there instead. What has happened is a much slower grinding operation where they are basically getting more and more brutal. They are inflicting more and more civilian casualties, and they are trying to take control of whatever they can. There is no particular strategic purpose to taking control of that nuclear power plant. It is just a power plaque. But what? It shows us that the Russian army is now trying to take what it can get, not what it wanted ticket. What it should be trying to take first Russian of focus entirely on Kiev and the airport around it, the key transport networks. So the whole thing is not going well at all for But that makes it more worry because the Russians, you know, remember in Chechnya the Russians killed Corder million people. They level Grozny, an ancient city, almost to the ground. So far, they have not been quite that brutal. They have been used their air force. But Putin, his threaten to use nuclear weapons implicitly, and he has escalated his demands. So he feels like a man somewhat cornered and therefore doubling down rice. I actually want to get into multiple scenarios review in just a second. But before that, let me just ask you, though a couple of questions, one of which is what this means when it comes to world order. But before that, I wanted to ask you about how he can be stopped, because at the moment, what we're seeing is that is that NATO countries are very clear that they don't want to get into into that war. And understandably so, They don't want to enforce the no fly zone as Ukraine has been asking, but they're trying to do it through the root of sanctions. Now, you are amongst many who pointed out that sanctions generally don't work. Tell us a little bit about that. Why has there been anywhere in history where economic sanctions have worked? And if they are to work in this case, what needs to be done? Yeah, well, we have a fairly long track record with sanctions. You know, there've been many efforts to do it going back to the ancient times with seizures and stuff and the fundamental promise they say for country believes in, You know, there it's core interest signed ball that Putin clearly has this kind of are nationalist vision of uniting all the Russian speaking people. The Belarusians, the Ukrainian wrist are Babs by your people in Georgia. This is a fundamentally nationalist, somewhat irrational project that is not about cost benefit calculations, and Putin doesn't suffer many of the cost of sanctions. We've seen this before. Castro did not suffer the cost of the sanctions placed on Cuba. He lived like a king. The Iranian regime lives Lyle, I killed it. Cages even though they're people, start so you never able to quite penetrate penetrate. Now there are few cases where does seem to work South Africa with the party. There were other things going on, but the sanctions clearly horde Iran with its nuclear programme, which which is why they may. They signed on to the deal. What were the characteristics? It really has to be comprehensive. It really has to feel like the country is being completely cut off from revenue sources. Only way to do that with Russia is to attack the goose that lays the golden egg that is, their oil revenues and natural gas regiments. If Russia is fundamentally a Petra strict, that's that's really the the source of its Well, if you do not, if you do not sanction that, I think you are fundamentally not going to be able to do it. And I work argued that the one advantage the United States and other countries in this coalition have is that there is a great deal of non Russians energy supply that can be brought to the market. The United States is the largest producer of liquid hydrocarbons in the work. Venezuelan oil is off market because of from sanctions. Those could be suspended. Iranian oil is off market because of sanctions. Those could be suspended. If the Iran deal is here, they have. Apparently they're close to read to renewing the Iran deal that would bring it back. Saudi suspect capacity. The has spare capacity. Canada has spread capacity, so he would really approach it from Iraq. Concerted way you could cut. The Russians are for massively diminished the supply while replacing it on the on the markets. It feels to me without that sanctions are going to be something that hurt the Russian people. Yes, they will affect Putin and they will constrain him a bit. But they're not been a stopped right? Okay, that's that's an important point, which I wanted to get you to just talk a little bit more about because the perception is that in a lot of the analysis is this that one of the reasons why Russia has not been heavily sanctioned when it comes to energy it's bits and pieces is because Russia supplies a large chunk of energy, particularly to Europe, and that they aren't easily enough available cheap alternatives, Which is why heavy sanctions of oil and gas on Russia will actually end up hurting, particularly European economies. Look, I think that there's truce to that. They, your audio Europeans get natural gas that's not as easy to supply as oil. It start is fungible. It's not as portable and there will be probably some some cost involved in doing it. Getting those L N G supplies to Europe will take time, but, you know, 40 years from now, people will write about what is going on this week and what is going on with the disruption with the University of the Effort of an aggressive dictator to really tear up the international order to tear up the rules of the road to tear up the international framework that has governed while international relations since 1945 they will not remember whether energy prices in Germany went up 10 of 15%. They will not remember whether, you know, the Germans had to scramble and said for a few months find other sources. We have to put this in car in the context of the stakes year, and this is something I think is very important for people in India and around the world to understand. We have lived in a world in which these kind of acts were really unthinkable. Since 1945 very few cases vanishingly small of countries simply walking into their neighbours euro, our land in and annexing and appropriating it conquering. It refused to have been all the time. If you were before 1945 for the previous 100 Dia's It happened every a couple of years, but we have created a system that is much more orderly, much more peaceful to have one of the world's superpowers that the largest nuclear armed power in the world, chair of that rule book, the stakes could not be higher. Okay, but tell us a little bit more about this changing world order and why we have come to this, because again, and this has been the subject of a lot of analysis that many people are seeing this as an indication that America is no longer the global super cop. It is internally divided, and in any case, this is no longer a kind of una pull our world. There are multiple power centres that are emerging this America. There's Russia, this China and that one of the reasons why Russia able to do this would you agree that this cannot marks the end of that era of the weather either even existed off of a certain kind of American supremacy? Yeah, I have written about that myself. I wrote up a call the post American world predicting exactly this. Look, it's happening for a variety of reasons. One is the it's not even the waning of American power. It's team waning of American will to uphold that power. U. S is still about a quarter of the world's economy. It is still, you know, larger military in military terms and next five countries put together. But the United States after Iraq, after Afghanistan, I think there is a certain exhaustion drill, his set in, which is reflected in the policy, the rise of India, China, all that further constraints, the you know, the reality of the financial crisis and the strains of American democracy that you are talking about that also puts a strain. But it's worth Snowden. All those have been features that have you created a new environment. But the principal spoiler in the international system for a decade now has been a re imperial ised Russia. Think about it. Russia is the world's great geopolitical spoiler state. At this point, it invaded Georgia. In the next two points of Georgia, it invaded Ukraine. In annexed Crimea, it created a de facto annexation in the east of Caribbean. The Russian government sends out its agents to kill Russian dissidents, whether they are in Germany, whether they are in England. It uses cyberwarfare to attack Western countries and some others. It interfered in the American elections. How extensively we can debate. The point is very few other countries that do things like this. I mean, China does not. Obviously, India is not. This is a This is a unusual, aggressive re imperial ist Russia with the man whose vision, as I say screw you, is to unite all the Russian speaking people who have been to live in many other by many countries that lie outside of Russia's borders. Fareed Zakaria. When their argument is made, there is a counter view of people who say that Look, why is America not seen in the same light? America might not be invading or sending forces into its neighbours, but assembly doing that in the Middle East and beyond. And and how is a how is that different and be, How does America then get off giving lectures about Russian aggression? Where does it still have that moral authority? Yeah, look, it's a fair point. I've made it myself that one of the things the United States has to be careful as as as the upholder of the international order to make sure that it also lives by. And I have argued, for example, that the United States should join the International Court of Justice for example things like that. But I know I think it takes a certain kind of moral of twos, nous or more of blindness. Not to see the difference between the United States that invaded Afghanistan to topple that the Taliban government, one of the most repressive governments in the history of the world and one that was sheltering Al Qaeda and sheltering Pakistani and an Afghan terrorists voices a Russian invasion, which is an attempt to annex a part of its neighbour and in some way or the other subject eight that country to its control. I do not dispute that the United States has made mistakes. It has, you know, it has it been militarily in ways that have had Yep, billion casualties. All those things are terrible, but again, it takes a certain moral accuse. Nous not to see the difference between what Russia is doing are intentionally re German early to really create a new Russian empire and what the United States was doing, you know, Pabst misguidedly perhaps, with a degree of callousness. That is unfortunate. And many of those operations, by the way, like the Libyan operation, like the Afghan operation was sanctioned under international law approved by the UN. Okay, Ro, in the case of the Libyan mission requested by the Arab. Okay, I, which there is time to get into more of this with uber. Well, we'll have you back. But let me ask you about India because again speaking to the point about the fact that the winning of some of American global influence that you have countries like India very close US ally now taking this kind of balancing act position, refusing to outright condemn Russia, refusing to to vote against Russia and the UN abstaining on a number of occasions. We know, of course, of audits, old historical, continuing links with the Soviet Union. But how would you make of India's position? Do think this is a pragmatic few or has it somewhat diminished India standing in the global landscape? Look, I understand India's quandary And this this place is it in a great in a great strategic quandary on India gets really most of its sophisticated military hardware from Russia. As somebody who has been arguing for 20 years that the India should really we think that strategic orientation that it has been ever since the Bush administration, the United States has offered a new strategic orientation for India, including defence cooperation, including arms sales. And you have in India for combination of reasons partly a kind of nostalgia and tie ties to the old Russian relationship, a certain degree of nostalgia for kind of non alignment policy, which was never nonaligned. Really. It was always probe Soviet for all these kinds of reasons, says the certain suspicion in the BJP of Westernisation and all that kind of thing. India has not moved with the kind of strategic purpose that I think would be would make sense. So I don't I don't criticise India for what is doing this week. It's trying a pack, pragmatic balancing of its interest. But the real question it should trigger is in a region in a winner world for India, in which the principal challenge it faces for the next several decades, if not for the next century, is the rise of China. Should India beat totally reliant for military hardware on China's greatest ally. To me, that seems to be a mismatch between India's national interests, right? It's national objectives and its national strategy. Okay, as we wind down, let me run you through five scenarios. This is inspired or borrowed from something the BBC had put out. And let me just quickly get your take on what you think is the most likely scenario. Number one. A short war. Russia escalates aggression, takes over Ukraine President Smolinski's either assassinated or, if Lee's and Russia ends are facing some kind of prolonged Ukrainian insurgency scenario to a long war. The Russian invasion drags in two months. They struggled to maintain control, and they eventually leave Ukraine bloodied, somewhat similar to the Afghan experience scenario. Three. The war spills into Europe. Russia sees the supply of arms, Western arms to Ukraine as an act of aggression. They perhaps enter NATO territories, and then you get into the risk of nuclear war scenario for a diplomatic solution. Fearing a backlash, Putin agrees to talk Ukraine accept Russian sovereignty over Russian control areas put in, accepts Ukraine independence. It's it's sort of pro European. Last scenario. Putin is ousted as the deaths mount. There's an uprising against him against CEO, smiling already, the West has to. Russia will withdraw sanctions of Putin goals, and he is ousted in a palace coup. Everyone lives happily ever after you could have other scenarios are they could be any way over to you or it's a very comprehensive list and and very well done. The hope of poor of parties that enter into military conflicts is always a clean, you know, decisive victory, eh? Very rarely happens, you know. Think of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Think of the Indo Pak boys with the territories like like Kashmir left left in, You know, in this kind of grey zone, right? I think most likely is therefore the one you places scenario for which is some kind of a less than perfect military solution for both sides, which then forces diplomacy, forces talks. Most wars end in that way. You know, classmates. The great Prussian strategist said war is a continuation of politics by other means. Yes. And so, in a sense, you know what happens is at the end of the war, the politics re emerges and you start talking. I would hope that that's where we go. And I hope that what What I'm advocating is that you put enough pressure on Putin and you cut off enough of his revenues that he feels real pressure to make some compromises to be fair to the Ukrainians they have talked about compromising from the start. Zelinsky has talked about things like a neutral status e. S C said. Maybe NATO membership was just a dream of Ukraine's but will not be a reality. It's Putin who remains utterly and transit drink, whose demands have escalated. Who talks in a ministry external toxin. Crazy terms about Zelinsky is being in neo Nazi and a drug dealer and things like that, which makes it, you wonder, Is he really going to negotiate with this man? Is he got to compromise with him? So that still seems to be the blockage. But if one had to predict that, I just do this on the basis that most wars end in some imperfecta brokered solution. Okay, well, let's hope that it's actually a scenario for because that's the best case scenario for everybody, for the world and for for Ukraine and Russia. But it is, of course, at an inflexion point. So fingers crossed my name. It's always a pleasure talking to you, Fareed Zakaria. Thank you so much for being on NDTV. Thanks very much. My pleasure.
