On the ninth day of the Russia-Ukraine war, I wrote a column in this magazine criticising the Government of India's neutrality, which only benefited the aggressor. I argued that the government should be proactive and use its influence on Russia to end the aggression. I mentioned that Russia was more dependent on India than vice versa.

What prompted me to write the column was the stance taken by some former Indian ambassadors, who claimed that Russia would capture Ukraine and install a puppet regime within a matter of days. They emphasised the massive scale of Russian forces sent to seize Kyiv and portrayed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "drug addict and comedian" who could not stand up to the mighty Vladimir Putin.

They did not realise that much the same could be said about the great Goliath, the Biblical character, who was felled by a little boy, David.

They also highlighted that the erstwhile Soviet Union, of which Russia was a part, was the only country that sided with India in the 1971 war. The 25-year Treaty signed by USSR leader Leonid Brezhnev with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi enabled her to ignore American President Richard Nixon during the liberation of Bangladesh.

Mrs Gandhi showed no concern for the US Navy's Seventh Fleet, led by the aircraft carrier Enterprise, which was sent to the Indian Ocean to intimidate India. This defiance was possible because of the Indo-USSR Treaty of Friendship. There was an element of truth in this argument.

However, what was overlooked was that Ukraine, as part of the USSR, also supported India during the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Moreover, Brezhnev, who signed the Treaty on behalf of the Soviet Union, was a full-fledged Ukrainian. I also mentioned the Ukrainian connection of Nikita Khrushchev, who stood up against Joseph Stalin and ended the Stalinist era, one of the darkest periods in history.

They further noted that Ukraine was among the countries that criticised India for its nuclear tests. But how many countries actually supported India's nuclear ambitions, which prompted a swift response from Pakistan and ended India's superiority in a potential conventional war? Except for Bhutan, none of India's neighbours supported it. Does that mean that we should be vindictive towards them?

We could not hold their aversion to nuclear proliferation against them forever, which is why we have been rebuilding ties with our neighbours and the international community. In other words, Ukraine's single vote against India should not be held against it when it faces aggression from Russia.

What India needed was a nuanced approach to pressure Putin. Our dependence on Russia for technology had already diminished, as evidenced by the Modi government's decision to acquire French military aircraft instead of newer versions of the MIG planes India had traditionally purchased.

The India-US civil nuclear agreement, pushed through by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, ended India's pariah status, allowing it to acquire uranium and other technologies necessary for nuclear power generation. In other words, India was no longer reliant on Russia, a country that has struggled to produce even basic consumer goods.

Today, almost every middle-class household in India owns products like cars, mobile phones, refrigerators, air conditioners, and computers from countries such as the US, Japan, South Korea, and China. I cannot recall any Russian consumer item being sold in India. Once, a Russian diplomat gifted me a pack of Russian cigarettes, which were worse than the cheapest Indian brands like Charminar and Passing Show.

Alexei Navalny, the Russian Opposition leader who was killed by Putin's agents, has, in his autobiography Patriot, written about how the Russians longed for even items like chocolate bars from abroad. His book is an eye-opener for anyone who supports Putin in the ongoing war.

True, India buys a significant amount of oil from Russia, just as it does from Saudi Arabia. Does that make India subservient to the UAE or other oil-exporting nations? If India had taken a stand against the war, Russia could not have ignored it—but that would have required courage. When the fight is between two unequal parties, neutrality, alas, is not an option. Unfortunately, that is the option India exercised.

I expected Narendra Modi to be more forceful when he met Putin shortly after winning a third term. Instead, the Russian autocrat used the images of camaraderie from their summit to his advantage. The world could not ignore the fact that Modi visited Putin at his dacha rather than the Kremlin. Putin likely chose the venue to manipulate public opinion. After all, he had once headed the Russian intelligence agency KGB, now called the Federal Security Service (FSB).

Contrary to the predictions of Indian diplomats and much of the Indian media, Kyiv did not collapse. The Russia-Ukraine war is now in its fourth year, and by no stretch of the imagination can Putin's daredevilry be said to be paying dividends. Instead, Russia has paid a heavy price for his adventurism.

The BBC reported that the "true number of Russian military deaths could range from 146,194 to 211,169... Russia last officially reported its military losses in September 2022, citing fewer than 6,000 deaths. "Ukraine last updated its casualty figures in December 2024, when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged 43,000 Ukrainian military deaths. Western analysts believe this figure to be an underestimate.

"The website Ukraine Losses, which compiles casualty data from open sources, currently lists over 70,400 surnames of Ukrainian soldiers. A random sample verification of 400 names confirmed the database's reliability. The Ukrainian casualty list is likely more complete than Russia's, as Ukrainian presidential decrees on posthumous military awards remain publicly accessible. In Russia, such data is classified."

The territorial gains Russia has achieved are insufficient to justify the staggering casualty rate. Even in the fourth year of the war, there is no imminent threat of Kyiv falling. In other words, Zelenskyy is better positioned than Putin, though he may not be able to declare victory in the near future.

Yet, US President Donald Trump attempted to humiliate Zelenskyy during their recent meeting in Washington. He called the Ukrainian leader an "autocrat" who did not conduct elections. "Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the USA into spending $350 billion on a war that couldn't be won, that never had to start, but a war that he, without the US and 'TRUMP,' will never be able to settle."

Worse followed. Trump allowed television crews to broadcast their meeting live—an unprecedented move for a summit. The intention was clearly to humiliate Zelenskyy. Trump behaved like a schoolteacher interrogating a child accused of stealing a classmate's pencil. If such a scene were recorded today, the teacher would undoubtedly lose his job. But here, the teacher is the president of the all-powerful United States.

As if Trump's uncouth behaviour weren't enough, his vice president, JD Vance, took a more combative tone, questioning whether Zelenskyy had ever thanked the US. Nine years ago, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Vance called Trump an "idiot" and "reprehensible," privately comparing him to Adolf Hitler. The world now sees that Trump and Vance are a perfect match— to borrow the advertising line from the India Tobacco Company (ITC), Made for Each Other.

Trump implied that Zelenskyy was solely responsible for the war when, in fact, it was Putin who initiated the conflict. This was tantamount to blaming the victim for their victimhood. While Trump called Zelenskyy a comedian, the world recognised his heroism in standing up to one of the most powerful leaders on the global stage. By the way, nobody called Ronald Reagan a failed Hollywood star when he was elected president of the US.

If Trump and Vance thought they could humiliate Zelenskyy into submission, they were sadly mistaken. Zelenskyy emerged as the victor in their staged encounter. Millions witnessed Trump and his deputy's arrogance, while Zelenskyy appeared as a capable and resilient leader. His conciliatory yet firm statement that day underscored the tenacity with which he has led Ukraine over the past four years.

Trump publicly questioned why Zelenskyy had not held regular elections. But which country could conduct elections while under constant threat of invasion? Trump's own faith in elections was called into question when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results in favour of Joe Biden. He even stage-managed a show to prevent Biden from assuming the presidency.

An opinion poll conducted after the Zelenskyy-Trump meeting showed that the Ukrainian leader's popularity had soared. In fact, if elections were held today, he would win by a landslide. The public humiliation he endured at Trump's hands only strengthened his position as Ukraine's unchallenged leader.

Of course, Zelenskyy knows that without US support, particularly in intelligence gathering, it would be difficult to stand up to Putin. He also relies on American military hardware. Thus, he had to be pragmatic.

This is why Zelenskyy agreed to a 30-day ceasefire at the Jeddah conference, forcing Trump to reconsider his decision to halt equipment and intelligence supplies to Ukraine. By agreeing to a ceasefire, Zelenskyy has shifted the burden onto Putin. If Putin rejects the offer, the world will blame him for missing an opportunity for peace. Accepting it, however, would expose his claims that victory is just days away. Unsurprisingly, Putin appears to be in a dilemma, likely delaying a decision to allow Russian forces to gain an upper hand. But, then, if wishes were horses, Putin's puppet would have been ruling Ukraine!

Trump should, in fact, be grateful to Ukraine for testing US weaponry in real war conditions. The US has also been able to evaluate its intelligence-gathering systems, which will help improve them. As a NATO member, the US has a responsibility to act in the alliance's best interests.

European nations understand that if Putin succeeds, it would send a warning to smaller countries in Russia's neighbourhood that they could face a similar fate. One consequence of the war is that Trump has proven himself to be unreliable. He is unwilling to fulfil the US's obligations to provide security to NATO members. He is more interested in tariffs than international security.

Trump fails to see the suffering of the Ukrainian people, all of whom have been affected by the war. He sees only Ukraine's mineral resources, remaining a businessman rather than a statesman. The Ukrainians have shown the same determination as the Vietnamese, who expelled the Americans from their country.

Former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently debunked Trump's claims, revealing that a British-supplied defence system aided Ukraine in the early days of the war. Sunak has called for $300 million in frozen Russian assets to be used for Ukraine's reconstruction. Russia cannot evade responsibility for the damage it has caused.

Sunak, who is of Indian origin and married to the daughter of Infosys founder NR Narayana Murthy, argued that while the proposal may seem radical, it is justified given Russia's attempt to destroy a nation's sovereignty. A thief cannot demand civic rights after trespassing and committing theft. India, too, should take a bold stand.

To cut the story short, the Russia-Ukraine war has exposed the complexities of global diplomacy and the need for principled leadership. While India's historical ties with Russia cannot be ignored, the time has come to reassess its stance and support Ukraine's sovereignty. Zelenskyy's leadership and the Ukrainian people's determination deserve global solidarity.

As the conflict drags on, the world must hold Russia accountable and work toward a just and lasting peace, ensuring that aggression is never rewarded. It is now or never.