Editor’s note: We have extensively tracked the Russia vs Ukraine conflict since December. If you need more context, we highly recommend reading our Big Story on the historical roots of the conflict and this timely explainer on the effectiveness of economic sanctions. We also charted the first day of the invasion here. 

PS: The lead image today is Pablo Picasso’s famous anti-war painting ‘Guernica’—which seemed most appropriate. 

Researched by: Sara Varghese & Prafula Grace Busi

Where we are now…

The negotiations: Ukraine and Russia agreed to hold talks—even as Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said his country will “not give up a single inch of … territory.” The meeting will be held without preconditions at a location close to the Belarus’ border. Why location matters: On Saturday, Ukraine rejected an offer for talks inside Belarus. What to expect:

“The Kremlin has signaled it wants to hold talks where Zelenskyy will discuss ‘neutral status’ for Ukraine, in effect hoping to negotiate Kyiv’s terms of surrender. But Zelenskyy’s administration has said while it wants talks to end the killing in Ukraine, it will not make concessions.”

President Zelenskyy says he is not optimistic about a resolution.

The nukes: President Vladimir Putin escalated tensions by ordering Russian nuclear forces put on high alert—citing “aggressive statements” by NATO nations and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia. Experts aren’t sure whether the move is meaningful as yet:

“Russia and the United States typically have the land-and submarine-based segments of their strategic nuclear forces on alert and prepared for combat at all times, but nuclear-capable bombers and other aircraft are not. If Putin is arming or otherwise raising the nuclear combat readiness of his bombers, or if he is ordering more ballistic missile submarines to sea, then the United States might feel compelled to respond in kind.”

The death toll: It’s becoming increasingly difficult to assess the number of casualties amidst the chaos of war—and many international observers who can offer a reliable count have left the country. The UN’s latest number: 240 civilian casualties—including 64 deaths. There is no news on Russian casualties—other than Ukraine claims that 3,000 soldiers are dead, and 200 have been captured. Also: leaked documents show that Moscow is preparing for a large-scale medical emergency. Also this: More than 368,000 people have fled Ukraine since Thursday.

Speaking of refugees: Indians—along with thousands of other foreigners—were stranded at the Polish border. And a number of them shared clips of Ukrainian soldiers using force to hold them back. The reason: They want citizens to cross the border first. Also: some students allege the soldiers see India as aligning itself with Russia. The Indian government is now exploring using the Hungary border as an alternative.

The state of the invasion: Everyone agrees that Putin’s invasion is not going to plan—and the hopes for a quick, relatively bloodless victory similar to 2014 are receding. The Russians still don’t have Kyiv—and their siege of Kharkiv, the second largest city, appears to have failed. One key problem: Supply lines. The invading troops keep running out of fuel. But this is early days yet:

“Officials caution that this picture of the battlefield is just a moment in time, and the situation on the ground could change very quickly as Russian forces keep up their assault. These officials noted that Russian forces still greatly outnumber Ukrainian forces, and Russia continues to manoeuvre these forces into position around major urban centres. It's also unclear how much of the slower movement can be attributed to the logistical challenge of moving such a large force.”

See where the troops are below:

Key point to note: Kyiv is encircled by Russian forces right now—and the mayor says no evacuations are possible. So it’s not a pretty picture by any stretch.

The civilian army: Social media was awash with photos and clips of ordinary Ukrainians signing up to defend their country. The most notable among them: the former CEO of an Amazon company and an 80-year old man. The government is handing out Kalashnikovs to anyone who wants them, and many are also amassing Molotov cocktails. 

Just as effective: clips of ordinary people confronting Russian soldiers—who, tbh, seem fairly calm. For example, this woman telling a Russian soldier to put sunflower seeds in his pocket so that flowers will grow when he dies on Ukrainian soil. Or more amusingly, this man offering to give a stranded tank crew a tow back to Russia.

Zelenskyy stays selfie-strong: He put out a number of selfie clips (here and here) reassuring the Ukrainians of his intention to stay and fight. When the US offered to bail him out, Zelenskyy apparently responded: “I need ammunition, not a ride.” So, if he survives this one, expect a Netflix series asap!

Meanwhile in the West…

Here come more sanctions: US and its allies pulled the trigger on one of the most severe penalties—cutting Russia from SWIFT, the global system used to make international payments (a good explainer here). While they did not end all access, the US and the EU removed key Russian banks—which is remarkable mainly because the Europeans have strongly resisted any such move.  

Far more consequential: New restrictions on Russia’s central bank to prevent it from using its large international reserves to undermine sanctions. Why this matters: Russia was relying on its massive foreign exchange reserves of $630 billion to ease the hardship of sanctions. 

Still out of bounds: Any sanction targeting energy revenues—since Russia’s oil and gas is critical for Europe. Also missing from the blacklist of Russian companies and billionaires: “most of the top names from Forbes’ list of the richest Russians whose multi-billion-dollar fortunes are now largely intertwined with the West, from investments in Silicon Valley start-ups to British Premier League soccer teams.” Data point to note: According to a 2018 study, 60% of the wealth of Russia’s richest households is held offshore, vastly more than any other country.

Sending arms: Germany, the Netherlands, France, Czech Republic and Lithuania have started providing Ukraine with arms and defence systems—while the US has promised a further $350 million in military assistance. 

Most importantly: All of Putin’s friends in Europe have turned their backs on him:

“In further blows to Putin, Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, long seen as friendly towards Moscow, abandoned his support, saying he would back all EU sanctions against Russia, while Turkey was reported to be considering blocking the passage of Russian naval vessels into the Black Sea.”

Meanwhile, at the UN: The Security Council voted to convene an emergency special session of the General Assembly to consider a resolution condemning the invasion—which was previously vetoed in the council by Russia. India once again abstained, along with China and UAE. But PM Modi did speak to Zelenskyy over the weekend. He expressed “deep anguish” about the loss of life and property but did not mention Russia or use the I-word.

Looking ahead: Here comes Cold War 2.0

Back to the ice age? The long-term fallout of the Russian invasion became crystal clear in Biden’s most recent speech—where he swore to make Russia pay “dearly, economically and strategically,” and to make Putin a “pariah on the international stage.” But the battle this time is framed as not between capitalism and communism—but autocracy vs democracy. 

A new Stalin? Rightly or not, Putin is being painted in the same colours as the great dictators of the past—a man obsessed with leaving a legacy of a greater Russia, “no matter the cost.” As Biden put it:

“Putin's actions betray his sinister vision for the future of our world, one where nations take what they want by force. But it is a vision that the United States and freedom-loving nations everywhere will oppose with every tool of our considerable power.”

All of which sounds drearily familiar to the rest of the world. Even Nina Khrushcheva—the great-granddaughter of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev—claims he is a “ruthless megalomaniac with a giant imperialist agenda” akin to Stalin and Mao. 

Remember the “containment policy”? In 1947, George Kennan authored America’s post-WWII foreign doctrine, arguing: “The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” The aim was not to push the USSR back from Eastern Europe—but to keep it isolated and prevent any further expansion. 

The doctrine crumbled alongside the Berlin Wall in 1989, but has made a startling comeback in foreign policy debates just in the space of days. Some Europeans experts say: 

“We are now back in a kind of confrontation of blocs, only the borders of the Western bloc have shifted eastward compared to the time of the Cold War. Peace in Europe is a thing of the past, and trust in Russia has been completely destroyed. It will take decades to restore trust between the West and Russia.”

And it’s no different in the US, where ‘containment’ has become the new buzzword: “The need now is to focus on containing ... and through containment effect internal change in Russia. It’s the only way we won the Cold War and how we have to fight this new fight, which is not for weeks or months, it’s going to be years.”

A war of US making? A number of analysts blame the US’ post-Cold War policy for Putin’s growing rage. Smug in its “victory,” Washington ignored Putin’s desire for a seat at the world’s table. He even asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join the NATO—and offered his support for the “war on terror” after the 9/11 attacks. He was repeatedly rebuffed—and all the while NATO was blithely expanding its ranks, inviting former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics into its fold. Back in 1998, the very same Kennan warned against the expansion: 

”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

Kennan’s prophecy appears to have come true. Russian officials blame an arrogant Uncle Sam for Putin’s irrational rage: “It’s their fault. They should have supported us and integrated us into the world, but they worked against us.”

So what would Cold War 2.0 look like?

It’s far too early to tell, but here are some of the features of the initial analysis:

A polarised Europe: In the midst of the invasion, Moscow issued a threat aimed at Finland and Sweden—neither of which belong to NATO but are members of the EU:

“It’s obvious that if Finland and Sweden join NATO, which is first of all a military organisation, it will entail serious military-political consequences, which would require retaliatory steps by the Russian Federation.”

While both brushed off the warning, they made their loyalties quickly clear—closing their airspace to Russian planes. The Swedish EU Minister declared: "It is now absolutely necessary to proceed with further touch measures to isolate Russia." And the former Prime Minister of Finland said Russia is “pushing Finland closer to NATO membership” and that “at this rate, we have no other option but to join.” 

The bigger picture: Expect hardening lines that drive EU countries away from Russia. While Finland etc may not become NATO members, they will certainly deepen their military ties with the alliance. But it may also leave many—like Ukraine—in the lurch:

"We might end up in a situation where the in-between spaces are being contested, where the ability of NATO and the EU to protect their influence is contested. It will be more about defending the countries that are already in these clubs rather than seeking alignment with the countries who aren’t.”

Age of cyberwars: The old Cold War was fought by proxy—in countries around the world which became pawns in the great geopolitical game. But the new version may involve a different kind of indirect confrontation and weaponry:

• Back in October, Microsoft reported that 58% of state-sponsored cyberattacks tracked by the company had emanated from Russia. 
• Many expect an economically wounded Moscow will use these to retaliate—as they are effective and hard to definitively blame on the Kremlin. 
• For example, last year, Russian hackers debilitated the Colonial Pipeline—shutting down nearly half of the supply of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel on the East Coast. 
• Last week, US and UK intelligence agencies warned that a Russian state-backed hacker group known as Sandworm has developed a new type of malware—that can penetrate firewalls.
• Today, Ukraine is facing waves of cyberattacks—similar to the NotPetya attack which devastated the country (and many parts of the world) in 2017. As one expert puts it: “Disinformation, false flags, DDoS attacks, and destructive wiper malware are a part of Russian military doctrine.”

Big point to note: It’s not just Russia. The US has also used cyberattacks to take out an Iranian uranium enrichment facility in 2010—and injected malware into Russia’s power grid in 2019. FYI: The Russians too have inserted a similar “sleeper code” into American networks, including the power grid. According to NBC News, Biden has been presented with a menu of cyberattack options—“designed to disrupt but not destroy, and therefore fall short of an act of war.” They include: disrupting internet connectivity, switching off electric power, and tampering with railroad switches to cut military supply lines.

A militarised Europe: A nasty and prolonged faceoff between the US and Russia will also spur countries to bulk up their militaries. Germany has already announced that it will devote an extra €100 billion to defence spending—which will be 2% of its GDP, as required by NATO. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said: “It's clear we need to invest significantly more in the security of our country in order to protect our freedom and our democracy.” Berlin will also be sending weapons to Ukraine, a war zone—including 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air missiles—which marks a first in its post-war history.

This may be just the first in a series of moves toward a more militarised Europe—more dependent than ever on the United States. 

A nuclearized world: Back in 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up the thousands of nuclear arms left behind after the end of the Cold War—in return for a promise by the US, the UK and Russia to guarantee its security. That decision today is a source of great bitterness. Kyiv is faced with an invasion from one nuclear power while the others offer support from a great distance. As experts note, Ukraine may well become a cautionary tale for other nations: 

“If the whole alliance architecture starts to crumble, and it seems to be in the Kremlin's interest to make it crumble, that would put a lot of pressure on a range of countries to at least flirt with nuclear proliferation, and that would have second-and third-order effects in regional security relations. For example, if Turkey decided to go that route, what would that mean for Saudi Arabia and Egypt?”

The bottomline: Irrespective of what happens next in Ukraine, the Russian invasion has irrevocably dislodged the post-Cold War world order. The shifting configuration of alliances will become apparent in the months to come.

Reading list

• Deutsche Welle, New York Times and CNN have excellent pieces on the return of the Cold War. 
• CATO Institute lays out a case against the US—which it blames for Putin’s escalation.
• The Atlantic decodes Putin’s increasing use of vulgar and angry language in his speeches.
• New York Times looks at the close friendship between Putin and Xi—which is increasingly under pressure.
• The Conversation, The Atlantic and Cnet look at the possible effects of Russian cyberattacks. Yahoo News looks at what a US cyberattack on Russia would look like.
• This LA Times op-ed looks at CIA backing of Ukrainian insurgents—and explains why it is a mistake.
• Is Ukraine a sovereign country or not? Vox looks at its complicated history.