After Friday’s incredibly dramatic if also unbelievable shouting match between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, we featured two highly regarded and well-informed former leading Indian diplomats who spoke about how they view the situation and what they see as the critical implications and consequences for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, Russia, Europe, Taiwan, the US and, of course, the rest of the world.
My first guest was India’s former ambassador to Russia and former deputy national security adviser, Pankaj Saran. And my second guest was India’s former ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. You have just seen a clip of the incredible if not unbelievable shouting match that took place at the White House yesterday evening between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to the BBC, after it was over, President Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House.
Whilst the details of what happened may be engrossing, what really matters are the implications and consequences. That’s what I shall focus on today.
My first guest is India’s former ambassador to Russia and former deputy national security adviser, Pankaj Saran.
Mr Saran, on Friday the world witnessed an incredible if not unbelievable shouting match between the American president and the Ukrainian president in the Oval Office. After it ended, the BBC reported Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House. It is the implications and consequences that I want to discuss but first, what was your response to this amazing development?
Pankaj Saran: Thank you, Karan. I was watching it live and I actually couldn’t believe that I was watching something which was real and not an AI-generated video clip. Because we haven’t seen this in diplomacy and discussions between two leaders, it was absolutely incredible, astounding and it just reflected to me the huge emotions and huge stakes that are involved for both sides in this conflict and it was coming to a head actually in the last few weeks, with a lot of shadowboxing between Trump and Zelenskyy and between the United States and Europe.
So, I think it was literally a denouement of huge proportions and it will definitely, in my opinion, accelerate and sharpen and harden the views, certainly on the Trump side.
I don’t think Zelenskyy has much to offer. The Europeans will and have been making noises in support, but I think Trump was actually and perfectly alright in expressing his views in front of the entire global audience, and basically he is saying this is transparency at its maximum, I am not trying to make any secret deals and this allegation that I like Putin and I am close to Putin is not going to stick on me, etc etc.
KT: As you said, you watched it live and you were mesmerised by what you were seeing; do you have any sense from what you watched and the way it unfolded about who is to blame? Trump and [Vice President J.D.] Vance repeatedly accused Zelenskyy of being disrespectful.
PS: I think, you know, on balance there is a lot of commentary out there, but I think Zelenskyy could not understand the feeling in the room and who he was talking to. I think he also has not internalised the fact that there has been a revolution in the United States. The comfort that he had with the Democrats and the Biden people is actually a thing of the past; there is no incremental change, there is a revolutionary change in the White House and I don’t think he was able to understand that very well.
He still probably felt that he could do business as usual. So since he is a visitor to the White House, he is sitting in Washington, he is talking to the leader of the NATO alliance, the most powerful nation on earth, who has publicly staked his campaign and his victory on ending the war.
I think he should have been more savvy and more intelligent about how he takes them on. I think, obviously, he felt cornered, he couldn’t handle the pressure and therefore I think one thing led to another, and I think there was a point at which he lost it when he suggested to Trump that ‘you would be next’ kind of statement, ‘don’t worry, it’s not just the ocean but he is going to come after you’. I think that is where tempers frayed.
KT: Absolutely, Trump lost his temper immediately.
PS: Yeah, I mean you don’t tell the president of the United States–and certainly, look, the fact is that they are not equals, right.
I mean, Trump and Vance and [secretary of state Marco] Rubio said everything except–they were decent and they did not say the main thing, and the main thing is this: that this was a proxy war which began with the trio of Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden, Zelenskyy and Ukraine was a setup. The Europeans were asked to join the project and today Trump is telling him ‘what I started, I am finishing and you were just a part of it’. So ‘you were a small component of a much bigger game that is going on so you understand what I am trying to tell you’. Obviously, he can’t say it in so many words.
KT: But you agree with the view which is coming out from Trump supporters in America that Zelenskyy overplayed his hand. As you suggested, he did not realise that there has been a revolution in America, he forgot that they are not equal partners, he forgot that he is sitting in the White House with the leader of the free world.
PS: Not just that, with a certain kind of leader. I mean he has a great sense about himself and … you know, of course, look, the other thing is they have a huge chemistry between themselves. Vance did not mince words and he said, you know you were campaigning with the opposition in Pennsylvania; so this interference in the election campaign in the United States and what they perceive Zelenskyy‘s role to be and the history between Hunter Biden and Zelenskyy and Ukraine, it has all come together with the larger geopolitical calculations.
So I think Zelenskyy was really in trouble. I think he is going to be in even greater trouble as he goes forward and he could well be the fall guy in the event – not in the event, in the certainty of a peace deal.
KT: Let’s focus a little on the implications and consequences of yesterday‘s outburst and let‘s begin by focusing on what this means for Zelenskyy and perhaps more importantly what it means for Ukraine.
Presumably, Ukraine is unlikely to receive any more arms and equipment from America. So when Ukraine runs out of the stock it already has – and there are predictions on CNN that maybe it can last till the end of March, maybe early April – then at that point does Ukraine collapse to Russia?
PS: No, I don’t think Trump will allow that. I think he will find a deal, at least he will find a halt or a ceasefire or an armistice before that. The larger peace package will happen, but the immediate priority is to stop the fighting and I think that in my opinion, Trump will do, obviously, he won’t countenance the collapse of Ukraine and if it takes for Zelenskyy to be moved out of the way, so be it.
Finally, of course, what he is also telling Zelenskyy is if you don’t agree with my analysis of where you are, you decide and you take the call. And so if Ukraine collapses – and everyone is saying it – then that is your responsibility, that is on you and not on me. ‘I am telling you I am trying to stop this’.
KT: How likely is it that Zelenskyy will be moved out of the way? I noticed that there have already been a few calls, maybe not very serious ones, within Ukraine from Ukrainian MPs calling for Zelenskyy‘s impeachment.
Might he be removed because he is seen as the obstacle to a closer, better relationship with Ukraine‘s most important partner, America?
Also read: India Abstains as Trans-Atlantic Rift Over Ukraine at UN Unites US, Russia Against Europe
PS: It’s possible. I mean, it is possible. But you know, whether he stays or does not stay, I think it is not really material to the bigger game that Trump is planning to play on the global stage. And he finds Zelenskyy‘s attitude and approach to be an unnecessary obstacle because he has other plans. I mean this is only his first move on the chessboard and so it’s possible he could or could not, but I don’t think we should attach great importance to that.
Whoever comes in his place, assuming he is removed, will likely be someone who Trump would find easier to deal with.
KT: Hours after this spat ended, Zelenskyy gave an interview to Fox News in America and he deliberately, I suppose, chose Fox News because it is Trump’s favourite channel, and there he says that he believes the relationship – he is talking about the personal relationship between himself and Trump – can be salvaged.
Do you think that is possible or do you think the rift is so deep and so personal that this is the relationship that cannot really be healed?
PS: Yeah, I think it has gone beyond repair. You know, one is the leadership, the personal relationship between the two men, and the other is the relationship between the two countries. In so far as the men are concerned, I think Zelenskyy realises and will realise–he would have gone back home and slept in his hotel room that night–last night and he would have understood that all is not well and it will be very difficult to restore.
Because it didn’t happen yesterday, it has been brewing, it has been brewing for weeks, for months, during the entire campaign of Trump … He has been listening to Trump and Ramaswamy and everyone else, so it’s difficult and I don’t think it will be the same ever again.
KT: What about the response from Moscow, the other party that is critically involved in the Ukraine-Russia struggle? President Putin’s response I imagine will be the exact opposite of the response we can expect from Ukraine and Zelenskyy.
Will Putin be smiling this morning, will he now look upon Trump as his ally rather than perhaps Zelenskyy’s?
PS: In private, I think of course he will be smiling and he will be patting himself on the back that what he began and his calculations and assessments of the consequences of what he did on the alliance, on the Transatlantic structures, etc. have actually been proved to be correct.
But that is in private. In public and in more serious terms, he realises that yes we have had this theatre, but we are discussing very, very serious issues. When Trump talks about dragging the United States into World War III, this is not for the faint-hearted.
So what Putin is going to do is to internalise all that, of course, be happy but realise that the difficult days are still ahead. And he will be put on notice and has been put on notice that this is the language that Trump can use and these are the expectations that he has of Zelenskyy. Then what is coming at him from Trump and he will drive a hard bargain with Putin–
KT: That is the flip side, isn’t it? That’s the flip side. If Trump is determined to secure peace and avoid what he called World War III, then there will also be pressure on Putin to agree to a ceasefire and perhaps to vacate some of the land that Putin has occupied, which he says he is determined to keep. There will be, therefore, pressure on both sides.
PS: Absolutely. Absolutely, that is what I am trying to say. That Putin will be and has been put on notice, that ‘listen you also have to concede’, and I think they have had enough backchannel conversations in the last, I would 7-8-10 weeks, if not longer, to arrive at this understanding that Putin will back off, otherwise Trump cannot sound so confident in public. He will have egg on his face.
So the backchannel deals and understandings are at a very advanced stage. We will find Putin backing off and making compromises, making concessions, we can discuss the nature of those. But if Putin is the spoiler after all of this, he is in really big trouble.
KT: Now the other part of the world that faces major implications is Europe. After last night, how damaged is the Transatlantic alliance, both [French President Emmanuel] Macron and [British Prime Minister Keir] Starmer must, I presume, would be very worried men. Their visits to Washington this week suddenly look as if they have come to naught.
PS: I think Europe is in really big trouble. There is no question about it. Europe has been exposed, it has been challenged to transition from a teenager to an adult and it is failing in that transition, it has nothing to say for itself. I mean I love the Europeans etc, but they stand totally exposed.
I would only like to say to you, in my own conversations with American diplomats going back 10-20-30 years, the frustration the Americans had with the Europeans was told to me and to many of my colleagues even at that time.
So this was, in one sense, systematically, this was brewing for decades. Trump has been able to get that sentiment and capitalise on it within his own country. And there is that very strong strand in American thinking about its approach to Europe as a partner to the whole body of Atlanticists who actually were dominating so far.
So to answer your question, Europe is in big trouble, but I don’t think they have solutions even today. Apart from issuing nice statements and appealing to people, to the world conscience, but when it comes to brass tacks, when it comes to hard power, they are very, very far away from helping themselves or Ukraine, and I think that is the frustration also in the White House.
KT: Two voices from Europe that I recall spoke out this morning, were first Friedrich Merz, who could be the new chancellor of Germany, and he said Europe could no longer rely upon America, and that was very strong language coming from a German leader.
And then Kaja Kallas, who is the European Union’s high representative, effectively the European Union’s foreign minister, said that the free world needs a new leader. They have always looked upon the American president as the leader of the free world, but here is the European Union’s high representative saying we need a new leader, Trump cannot be it.
Is there some sort of backlash developing in Europe?
PS: There is. I mean, look, I do not think the liberal elites in Europe ever liked the rise of Donald Trump, whether it was 1.0 or whether it is today. And in conversations privately, the Europeans did not mince any words about their utter dislike for Trump and everything that he stood for. So it was happening in private, it is now out in the open.
The question we have to ask is if Europe wants to replace the United States as the leader of the free world, nothing is stopping it. The question is how do you acquire this leadership? What are the attributes of this leadership? Moral suasion and soft power are not going to get you anywhere.
This is the real world, and so Europe can say all of this, but they do not have a defence union, the OSCE is dead, they don’t have a European defence force, they maybe have a military strategy of some sorts. Their military spending is abysmal, they don’t have a military-industrial complex, 70% of the military expenditure is incurred in the United States. So what does Europe bring to the table to acquire that leadership?
And number two, the United Kingdom is not Europe and we have to understand that. There is a big difference between what the Europeans say and what the UK says.
Number three, within Europe, this is all going to happen. We will have, I think, to put it loosely, multipolarity within Europe. France, Germany, Poland, Italy, and then the rest of the Europeans and each of them–and now they are talking about this idea of Coalition of the Willing inside Europe, and you wait till we come to the security guarantees and the presence of the foreign troops to monitor and watch the ceasefire agreements are reached.
So they may say all of this, but how do you translate what they are saying into action which is credible to their own people? The European project today began with the idea of integrating Europe. Today, they understand the project has shifted to protecting Europe and they don’t have solutions for that.
KT: Tell me Mr Saran, what does this mean for China’s claim to Taiwan? Will President Xi feel he’s got some sort of green light from Trump? After all, if Trump is prepared to sacrifice Ukraine in Russia’s cause, might he be prepared to sacrifice Taiwan if his relationship with China improves?
PS: You know, it is a timing issue. He has four years and he has already, again, made it clear that in Taiwan he does not attach the same importance as the Democrats did. His primary goal – and since you have shifted to China – that really is an area of action on which Trump has been very careful in saying anything after becoming president. Before becoming president, of course, he was much more vocal.
The only thing he has done is that he has spoken to Xi Jinping on the telephone within a few days of taking office. But on Taiwan, he has been careful. But the signals coming out are that he is not going to go hammer and tongs at playing Taiwan against China. But I think Xi Jinping is no Putin. He understands the stakes in Taiwan, and I think what Trump is trying to do by his demeanour and his bluster and his actions and everything else is to also issue a kind of warning to other strongmen, that ‘you either deal with me in the manner in which I believe we can move forward or you will face the consequences’.
I would put Taiwan in the broader context of how he visualises China and the competition between the United States and China, which far transcends Taiwan. Taiwan is important, but there are so many elements, and this competition issue goes to the heart of his campaign and his belief in ‘making America great again’, and ensuring the power domination of the United States vis a vis the other competing powers of which China is by far the most important.
KT: Let’s for a moment, Mr Saran, focus directly on Donald Trump himself. The American president, as you know, is a special person for heads of government all over the world. How will they view him after his behaviour last night?
I imagine, for example, that the king of Jordan and the president of Egypt, both of whom have differences with Trump over Gaza, which is the other international flashpoint on which Trump has been pretty outspoken, would be very perturbed this morning.
And so too, I imagine, Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa, because only a week ago, the American secretary of state refused to attend the G20 meeting in Johannesburg.
I mean are there heads of government who will have watched Trump’s behaviour last night and said ‘hallelujah, this is not good news for us, this is an America that we would be very uncomfortable having to handle?’
PS: Absolutely, it will have sent shock waves across world capitals, particularly to those middle countries, middle powers who are aspiring to take positions which do not agree with the president.
But having said that, I think they also understand, almost the entire world understands, that Zelenskyy and Ukraine is and was always a special case. And so they [inaudible] out here, whether it is [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el] Sisi or whether it is Ramaphosa or whether it is the king of Jordan, I mean these people are for real.
But yes, they would be concerned, and there would definitely be trepidation, I mean no one wants to be talked down [at] like this, so they may take a deep breath.
But the question is whether we assess that Trump is going to exhibit this kind of behaviour with people like them or say with the president of Iran, when he meets them as he has done with Zelenskyy. I think there was a background to the Zelenskyy-Trump meeting and a history as we discussed, which may not apply to these other middle power leaders.
Of course, if you talk about Putin and Xi, I don’t think he is going to speak like this to them.
KT: Finally Mr Saran, is there a lesson here, or maybe a warning, for India and Mr Modi? Could our differences with America over tricky issues such as tariffs and illegal immigration lead to similar outbursts?
PS: You know, I think obviously we have got away scot-free in our first visit to the White House, and I think we should be pleased with ourselves that we were neither embarrassed nor humiliated, and we actually came out unscathed.
But even in Trump 1.0, when I was around, on the trade and tariff issues the negotiations privately were brutal, very brutal and very frank. And this was happening even when Trump was gunning for China and establishing the Quad, etc.
So the India-US relationship was riding on many tracks in parallel. The lesson there was that if there is an issue which is of let’s say overriding concern for the Trump administration, they will go all out to press their case.
But you know, the Indians are famous for their rope tricks and we will find a way and I think we have to give credit to ourselves for manoeuvring and for managing. I don’t think at the level of summit leaders you might ever see this kind of situation, but at second or third levels, at the level of negotiators and cabinet officials … it could be very rough.
So the lesson for us is be careful, watch your step, don’t assume how he is going to go forward, don’t take friendship for granted as such, and remember this is the real world, there are real interests, whether it comes to migration, technology, trade, FDI or H-1B.
And you know, you have to quickly adapt yourself to hard negotiation. I think, I have a feeling that our system has geared up to this and this is a wake-up call for everyone as I’ve said.
KT: Mr Saran, thank you very much for the time you have given me and thank you for sharing your very perceptible analysis about those amazing, dramatic and sometimes even unbelievable developments last night. Take care, stay safe.
PS: Thank you.
Also read: Ukraine Not Invited to Its Own Peace Talks, History Full of Such Events
§
Interview with Meera Shankar
KT: Welcome back, I am now joined by India’s former ambassador to the United States, Meera Shankar.
Mrs Shankar, on Friday, the world witnessed an incredible if not unbelievable shouting match between Donald Trump and Volodymr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. After it ended, the BBC reports, Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House.
It’s the implications and consequences I want to discuss, but first, what was your response to this incredible development?
Meera Shankar: Well, this is not diplomacy and certainly, it is unprecedented for a meeting between heads of state and government. But of course, it comes from the fact that both are playing to their different domestic constituencies and both approach the same issue from a very different perspective.
So you know, television makes for good theatre and they can address their respective constituencies at home.
KT: Absolutely, in fact at one point during that spat, President Trump actually said this will make great TV. But you have seen the clips of what happened and you read about it in papers this morning, do you have any sense of who is to blame?
MS: Well, I would not say that anyone is to blame, but I think the new administration is in a hurry and it is showing impatience with Ukraine and with the Europeans, who want to continue pursuing the old policy of somehow wearing down Russia.
I think Trump wants to cut the Gordian knot quickly and proceed to reset relations with Russia. And from my point of view, strategically that makes sense for the US, because if it succeeds, it would be like the Nixonian moment, where Nixon weaned away China from the Soviet bloc towards the US.
KT: Let us then come against that background to the more important implications and consequences of yesterday’s shouting match.
First of all, where does this leave Zelenskyy and Ukraine? Presumably, he is unlikely to receive any more arms and equipment from America, so when he runs out of what he has already got, will Ukraine steadily collapse?
MS: Look, I think Europe is also providing Ukraine with assistance and with weapons and equipment. So for some time, Ukraine may be able to stretch out its resistance to Russia, but I think what Trump is signalling very clearly and with impatience is that he is not looking towards a long-drawn negotiation where you keep trying to get more concessions from the Russians. He wants a quick end to the war and the outlines have already been conveyed, because–
KT: But that is where Trump clashes directly with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy made clear that he has severe problems accepting a straightforward ceasefire because it would be tantamount to Ukraine surrendering. He also pointed out that he needs security guarantees if a ceasefire is to be meaningful and to last.
Tell me, this has created such a deep rupture with America as far as Ukraine is concerned, and America as you know is Ukraine’s most important partner, can Zelenskyy survive in office after this? Or is it only a matter of time before he will be eased out? He is anyway living on borrowed extra time.
MS: Yes, I think it is a rupture not only with Ukraine but also with Europe in a fundamental way. Unless Europe adjusts to Trump’s policies, because they live cheek-by-jowl with Russia, they have been more concerned about what this may subsequently encourage by way of Russian behaviour.
KT: But let’s focus for a moment first on Zelenskyy. Can he survive this?
MS: Well, Trump has already pushed for elections in Ukraine. He has said that Zelenskyy has been ruling under martial law and that he needs to hold elections at the earliest so that there is a representative government in Ukraine. And of course, he said that Zelenskyy’s popular support in Ukraine is virtually down to nothing, but of course Zelenskyy has contested this, saying that–
KT: But there is a bigger question there. Ukraine cannot afford to lose American support. I know that they have the complete commitment of the European countries, but America is the critical partner. And if the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy has ruptured so badly then American support could be in danger, might Zelenskyy have to resign as a way of patching up the relationship?
MS: Yes, that is a possibility. Because America is the partner which matters as far as Ukraine is concerned. It is unlikely that the Europeans would be able to carry the Ukraine conflict on their own shoulders vis-a-vis Russia, and certainly impossible that Ukraine could do it on its own if America does not support it.
So I think for Ukraine it is a time of reckoning and it is a time for cutting down their losses. Unfortunately, they have been losing their territory in recent weeks.
KT: But you are saying something very important. You are accepting Zelenskyy may end up paying a personal price.
MS: He could, he could.
KT: Tell me, how will all of this go down in Moscow? I would imagine that the only person smiling is President Putin. His response and the Russian response will be almost the exact opposite of the response from Ukraine. He will now view Trump as his ally.
MS: Yes, he is looking at Trump as someone who has policies which are more favourable to resetting relations with Russia and indeed this is what Trump tried to do in his first term as well, if you recall.
But the deep state if you will created a tripwire in terms of the issue of Russian interference in the presidential election in the US and that stymied Trump’s hand in his first term. I think this time he has come very prepared to actually do what he wanted to in the first term. So he is not only looking at ending the conflict in Ukraine, he is really looking at resetting relations with Russia–
KT: And that will be music to Putin’s ears. And already, the two governments have held talks to see how they can resume diplomatic relations at the fullest level; the exchange of ambassadors is now being talked about in the American press.
Also read: Mercantilist Trump Makes It Clear Alliance With US Comes at a Price
MS: Yes, they have agreed to actually reopen embassies and have full diplomatic representation in each other’s capitals. And I think there are larger questions also, because for Russia–
KT: But the biggest question is, does this development strengthen Putin’s hand against Ukraine? I noticed that Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president who also served as prime minister, has already on Twitter called Zelenskyy an insolent pig.
Will the Russians feel that their hand has been fairly considerably strengthened in the continuing three-year war with Ukraine?
MS: Yes, certainly this is something which weighs in on Russia’s position, because it is an incredible development that the US is accepting Russia’s position. And you saw that at the UN itself, where the US voted against the European resolution and also abstained on its own resolution because the French moved amendments that the US did not like.
So, it is one of those rare occasions where the US and Russia have voted on the same side in the UN. Clearly it strengthens Russia’s hand, vis-a-vis Ukraine, and–
KT: Now, the other part of the world that faces major implications is Europe. After last night, how damaged is the Transatlantic alliance? Both Macron and Starmer must be very worried men. Their visits to Washington earlier this week have suddenly come seemingly to naught.
MS: Yes, and you can also see the statements made by Friedrich Merz, who has got the largest number of seats in the German elections and is likely to head a coalition government and become the chancellor. So he has said that Europe has to now move towards taking responsibility for its defence and basically become independent or self-reliant.
So I think that it is a sentiment which is going to gather steam in Europe. That Europe must have its foreign policy, it must have its own security and the capability to do so, because till now, Europe has relied on the US nuclear umbrella and on the US presence in NATO. Now Europe will have to pick up the bit and take on more responsibility for their own security and perhaps move towards a more independent position instead of ipso facto falling in line with the US.
KT: What does this mean for NATO? At the heart of the Transatlantic alliance lies in fact the NATO alliance. Traditionally, NATO has looked upon the American president as the leader of the free world; but Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s higher representative, has now tweeted that the free world now needs a new leader.
That sounds as if people like her repudiating the traditional American role of leadership of the free world. This suggests another fracture in that critical alliance.
MS: I think President Trump is also signalling that he does not want to carry the burden of Europe on his shoulders and that Europe must take more responsibility for its defence. A corollary of that would be that Europe would – could, not would – move to a more independent position on its policies from the US.
And to some extent from India’s point of view, that’s a good thing, because it means that there are more poles in the world with which to actually work.
KT: Tell me, what does this mean for China’s claim on Taiwan? I imagine that in Beijing they are watching, very sharply and acutely and with a certain amount of satisfaction, the developments in the White House yesterday. Xi must feel he’s got some sort of green light from Trump.
MS: Well, I would hope not. But yes, Trump’s signalling on Taiwan has been mixed, but they are actually doing weapon sales to Taiwan under the Trump administration. So I wouldn’t say it has been as clear cut as in Ukraine, where even during his campaign Trump said that he’s going to stop the war, halt the war, in 24 hours.
But vis-a-vis China there are mixed signals coming from the Trump administration. On the one hand, they see China as the country which has the potential capability and intention to challenge the US leadership in the medium to long run. And on the other hand, there is Trump’s penchant for a deal with his adversaries. He is fascinated with that.
KT: That is where the danger lies for Taiwan, doesn’t it? If Trump decides it’s time to improve the relationship with Beijing, and all it needs is for Xi to reach out and give that signal, Taiwan could be the sacrificial lamb just as Ukraine looks like the sacrificial lamb in the relationship between America and Russia.
MS: Yes, but I think with regard to Taiwan, Beijing at this juncture would wait to see what kind of deal that Trump is willing to strike with them rather than upset the apple cart by moving into Taiwan by force at this stage.
KT: Let’s come to Trump himself directly. The American president – as you know better than me, you’ve served in Washington as ambassador – is a special person for heads of government all over the world. How will they view him after his behaviour yesterday?
I imagine for example, that the king of Jordan and the president of Egypt, both of whom have differences with Trump over Gaza – which is the other major flashpoint in the world at the moment – would be very perturbed this morning. And so too Cyril Ramaphosa, who suddenly discovered ten days ago that the American secretary of state was not going to come for a G20 meeting.
These are heads of government who must be very concerned, because if they see Trump behaving in this – and I’ll use that word deliberately – ‘outrageous’ manner, they may get very worried that they could be victims of his anger or his behaviour.
MS: Yes, absolutely. You know, it looks like a new American imperium, if you will, because Trump believes he can do what he wants. And on the other hand, there is this contradictory impulse to accept that the world can be divided into spheres of influence between the major powers, with the US supreme in the western hemisphere – that is, the Americas and going all the way to the western Pacific – Russia having influence in parts of Europe, and China in East Asia.
So there are two contradictory impulses at play; on the one hand, the desire for an American imperium, and on the other hand the desire to draw back from the world and let others take more responsibility, and spend more, and accept–
KT: You know, the second possibility would be one of great concern to India.
MS: Yes.
KT: If Trump were to accept that Russia and China have a right to their spheres of influence just as America has the right to its sphere of influence. India as a neighbour of China would be part of China’s sphere of influence. He’s suddenly, then, subordinating us to Beijing.
Are there lessons here or warnings for India? Could our differences with America over things like tariffs and immigration lead to similar outbursts against us?
MS: Look, I think with China there is mixed signalling so far, I don’t think a clear policy with regard to China has shaped up as yet.
KT: What about India?
MS: India, with–I mean, President Trump has clearly signalled that he does not see us in the league of great powers, but at the same time when Prime Minister Modi went there at least there was no blood on the floor, you know as you’ve seen in visits by other leaders.
But clearly, negotiating tariff differences and differences on trade and immigration, I think these are going to be sticky points. But by and large for India, I think, Trump has not been so hostile as he has been to some of his other partners, like Canada and Mexico, or even Europe.
KT: My last question: do you view yesterday’s outburst in the White House as a sort of seminal moment in international politics?
MS: Yes, I do view it as a seminal moment in international politics, and clearly you are going to see seismic shifts in the geopolitical landscape.
KT: Mrs Shankar, thank you very much for the time you have given me, take care, stay safe.
MS: Thank you.
