The term ante-Quad doesn’t mean anti-Quad, where Quad is the quadrilateral security dialogue initiated by Australia, Japan, India and the United States in 2007. Ante derives from anteforce (Paleri, 2002) which has no opposite. Anteforces are permanent in any human system. They oppose what is considered normal or regular or in vogue. Anteforce is not illegal or unlawful but can be a pain-in-the-neck for unrestricted governance. Handling the anteforces is one of the challenges of governance. Rule of law is not the appropriate remedy for anteforce being the other pole that acts as a flux inducer in the bipolar human system. The anteforce in human system can be exploited in governance by conversion as proforce (Paleri, 2002) by competent governance. It is yet to be tried out seriously. Ante-force cannot be eliminated from the system. It is the counter force that balances the flux in system polarities. It is simple physics. The explication so far is for reflecting this paper sans semantic dissonance (Paleri, 2022) to the readers. This also transacts that the present Ukraine conundrum will continue without escalating into an all out war, unlike projected under anxiety, thanks to the 21st century advanced human stasis. The world has surged forward a bit more from Saddam’s time in awareness. War is over, rather, should be over if those at the helms can appreciate. War is no more an instrument of state policy in resolving differences in an advanced world where economics rides governance, human-wellbeing is the goal of governance, and diplomacy is not selective but compatible to people on both sides. But, humans can be still stupid when idealism lap dissolves into realism.
There is no thought about ante-Quad yet though China had expressed that Quad is Asian NATO. It is not, because NATO is a different alliance weathered through time and action. NATO, evolved from the Dunkirk Treaty (1947) between France and the UK against Germany (before the split) and Soviet Union, should have been a vestige once the Warsaw Pact had gone (1991) in a disciplined world where everyone was supposed to love thy neighbours and their money. But NATO intends to expand. It is the most powerful military alliance in the world that is going to stay and expand. NATO’s agenda 2030 finalised in 2021 is quite ambitious and confident under huge budget. Ironically it runs parallel to the UN Agenda 2030 of sustainable development goals (SDGs) with the same D-date. The intention of NATO is to lead a forward looking reflection to make it ready, strong and united for a “new era” of increased global competition. It means there will be identified target entities external to it. That again is natural to a bipolar system but is not supportive of system sustainability as desired through the SDGs. Competition using military machinery will cause sufferings to people that SDGs cannot erase. The US feels the results will be horrific if Russia invades Ukraine. Washington and Kyiv are paranoid about it at this moment in spite of Russian assurances. The US is committed to helping Ukraine defend itself. The paranoia was caused by the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia from Ukraine in 2014. It is yet to get all out consent. It is considered part of Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia established two federal entities there—Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The trends point out to more turbulence, the tremors of which will be felt much beyond.
NATO will thrive to execute its reflection through its members and partners across the globe including Pakistan in all terrains including space and cyberspace. India is part of Quad, but has no intention to be with NATO as a partner except in common cooperation. India intends to retain its strategic autonomy. It’s capable of defending it. The prospectus of Quad is bleak but for a few naval exercises which of course has cooperative yield. Quad is not likely to remain dynamically anchored in the overall geostrategic context for various reasons. Already it has assumed the shape of Quad2 subsequent to Australia’s pullout between 2008 and 2017. In between Quad lost momentum. There are added follies too. Comparatively AUKUS1 seems to be preferred for geostrategic symmetry between East and West. But east and west are terms that exist only by reference usage in a world that is round. Differentiating the world nations under categories of geographical convenience need not lead to the desired harmony in modern times. It is more ridiculous than dividing the unitary ocean which is stated for convenience in ocean governance. Times have changed. Or governments should change them at least now leading to a unified (not collective) world under differences. Sustainable development goals cannot usher such stability when United Nations itself is a collective that needs a refreshed charter urgently. Mere collection of bones can’t make a skeletal system. The world is too much into the past. The ghosts of the past block forward thinking. It’s time to change into a no-war world even though it will be riddled with conflicts. The time is now, 2022. Conflicts other-than-war will remain, but wars can be erased from a sapien human system, the next level. Peace is an abstraction. The term is other-than-war situation under conflict. Conflicts are part of human interactions that are manageable by governance. Yes, people will die; there is a default bias called “life by death” in all life forms. The author calls it LBD. That’s a different take.
If separation exists in convenient globalism, India could be called the legendary middle earth by geolocation. That explains its hybridity through interactiveness of inliers and outliers in the longest continuum. India can do a lot for the world. It was visible during the corona invasion. India has been tested in peacekeeping operations. India is not a peace breaker but a peace broker by nature. It is not in the Aukus triad. That is not the place for the middle earth. Aukus is an assembly of acceptable convenience for the three members in it. They prefer it that way for quick response in their style and habit. Barring such wayward assessments, the question is about the shape of ante-Quad, even if virtual or an abstraction. Will it be against Quad or NATO? The Warsaw Pact (1955-1991) was dissolved premonitorily about six months before the dissolution of Soviet Union leaving the world for NATO to expand. But Quad is different. So, who will be the members of the ante-Quad even if formed virtually? Calibration is easy if the fourth member is identified. The three are almost visible through the veil of fog. Or will it be a triad similar to Aukus? There are more such questions that will impact India and make it meander geostrategically as there are pointers of such changes in future when governments change in the Republic.
The formal devolution of Soviet Union (1922-1991) on 25 December 1991 has been expressed in different ways by the strategic society: breakup, implosion, fusion, fragmentation, containment aftermath, Gorbachev dilemma, disintegration, destruction, collapse, finish… The terms project the semanticists’ strategic outlook besides deep desires and wish lists that can distort reality in decision making. For the author, what ensued was micronisation of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Micronisation could come about to any geoentity. Micronisation of Soviet Union impacted every geoentity and global population in different ways. It was not a sensation of any kind if one believes in the natural processes of a human system—family to nation. The causes do not matter. Russia was a giant nation in the Soviet Union. It still is as Russian Federation. It holds 11 per cent of the global real estate spread out in Europe and Asia. Micronisation interrupted the continuum passage of 69 years (short of five days) of all the 15 members for a reset. Such alterations can induce a kind of Samson’s dilemma among nations and their keepers. In the mythopoeian thinking it happened to Samson after the haircut. Yes, it will be a surprise if Russia is not going through Samson’s dilemma—that sinking feeling. Micronisation means dividing or partitioning a nation permanently. The divided part may form a separate nation or conjoin with another by macronisation of the latter. Nations may break their continuum stasis even without micronisation. Macronisation is expansion by attachment. To that extent, in this musing, a nation means a geoentity that can be governed under national security (GBNS), period
A nation deserves existential respect as a separate individual entity that in no way is different from another. Nation is different from its people. They complement each other. The only difference between nations is in the way of governing it. According to this thinking, there are no failed nations, but only failed governments. The people may decide the destiny of a nation and their own voluntarily or involuntarily in a dynamic system. That means the law of primality of a nation states every nation tends to follow a track that may either micronise or macronise it along the way. The chances in future are more for micronisation as demographic density increases unless the governments govern under GBNS.
Russia is powerful in geostrategic context by real estate, geoproperty and technology. It has inherent power. It can tread into every terrain of national security and handle every element of it inclusively. It may not require additional land or resources to sustain. But certainly there are much more to it than what the eyes meet if Russia looks at another in the neighbourhood with a wink in the eye. It is not similar to China’s nibbling strategy to macronise. In the Ukraine bedlam Russia perhaps is calling a bluff to balance its polarity with its close maritime neighbour across the disputed borders of the Bering Strait, the gateway to the Arctic—a kind of Westside story, holy baloney.
The recent Afghan scenario had seen important visitors to Kabul besides the claimant Taliban to help the US to pack up leaving the space to them. That should give a hint for the ante-Quad though it need not be official. The struggling Quad2 could gain a bit of leeside comfort if it cares for getting New Zealand (the Continent of Zealandia) turning to Pentad (Penta dialogue) and dilute the Chinese angle from its exclusive strategic objective and engage beyond ocean in solidarity. That is what is done in arms control confidence building measures when target points of nuclear missiles are defused. It will be good to remember that China is the main finance partner for many geoentities down the 40th parallel north including Australia and New Zealand. China cultured its economic spread very carefully over a long period. China is simply smart in geostrategy, not just in technology.
The position that Turkey takes will be an interesting input in the global geostrategic context. It will be time functional as Turkey is considered an interface between Europe and Asia. It is transcontinental and has feet balanced on both. A stable Turkey can be very functional for balancing conflicts in the world. The author considers Turkey may function more as a modem than an interface as a communication enhancer between both. Turkey has been walking the fine line. It is specific to its geolocation. But it can also meander as mentioned about India under critical regime change.
The US could once again think of emulating George H. W. Bush (1989) in reevaluation of the present day Russia against the new century which ushers a war free world post Russia negotiated Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Azerbaijan and Armenia early last year. It cannot be a trend, though. An incident that stands against the validation of this proposed statement is the killing of Major General Quasem Soleimani of the extraterritorial special operations force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on 3 January 2020 on his way to call on the Prime minster in Baghdad. Biden may know better but the attack resonates into the lake placid that a war-free world can create. In the present day world it is not easy to keep even covert operations covert.
The Biden administration and NATO have already told Russia that there will be no concessions on its main demands over Ukraine. The reference was to the open door policy of NATO membership. It means the alliance stands on deployment of forces in Eastern Europe. Hence any encounter at this stage could make things burn in a backward surge under human vagaries. The question is will Russia allow the alliance for taking decisions for it. Yes, if they decide to halt membership of Ukraine in NATO. That perhaps is on the crystal ball. In the meantime, the Ukraine leaders have told its people to stay calm and there wouldn’t be a war. On the other hand in some part the Ukrainians are practising with dummy weapons like children in the school backyard to take on Russians if they invade. They have reasons too to be in preparedness, especially under the suspense over shooting down the Malaysian airliner MH17 in July 2014 over Ukraine.
The issue here is not just the membership for Ukraine in NATO but more specifically selective arms control. Russia, according to the US has its forces in Ukraine besides other erstwhile Balkan countries which also include offensive missile postures and placements. It has put Russia in coercive position as it doesn’t want US-NATO alliance to intimidate them. That is human demeanour in the fight mode.
There are ongoing discussions in the Ukraine standoff. They could keep the issue on hold. A positive end solution is still not reachable. India has strong relations with Ukraine and Russia. But it decided to remain neutral. India understands the NATO versus Russia and Ukraine posture is a kind of Trojan horse that can undermine Russia’s strategic interests in the region. It also shows George Kennan’s containment policy (1947-1989) still holds valid and not completed in spite of Soviet micronisation. The containment policy invoked by the US under his recommendation stated that Soviet pressure had to “be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points“. Russia replaces the Soviet Union in the containment format today. But one should understand in the beginning the goal of Kennan’s policy was to withdraw all the US forces from Europe. What does this indicate today? It may call for rethinking by all parties involved including the intelligence bodies.
The US seem to be responsibly willing to consider Russia’s stated concerns at the moment but the stalemate will continue if ex-Soviet nations fall behind US-NATO alliance. Russia will be averse to it. The UN need to get involved and monitor the situation within its limitations. It is important in this context that Kremlin never said or projected its intentions were to attack Ukraine. It has repeatedly denied the bluff. But it had been conducting massive manoeuvres near Ukraine.
It is time for Russia and NATO to know that any explosive action will take them to the past, not the future. It may be prudent for the US to use the wisdom of John Fitzgerald Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis as modified and appropriated, the Ukrainians to consider making their country a better place with its own identity leading their governments instead of wishing for a quick fix, and for India to examine its future in a highly vacillating internal political scenario to remain just there for the needy. The century, if spent in a win-hold-win situation by all will be good for future generations. The relations between the NATO and the Russian Federation established in 1991 (North Atlantic Cooperation Council) and the subsequent partnership programme for peace (1994) and agreements of cooperation can provide answers to prevent the situation turning to a Gordian knot.
There are still prospect of war at the end of the line, a dangerous one that too, but the trends are that the world in general is averse to it. Healthier conditions can prevail by accepting that the world will be better balanced in its natural bipolar stasis than unipolar unlike what the containment theory prescribed years back. The scenario was different then. A unipolar system has extremely short half-life. It tends to turn bipolar at the immediate chance. Therefore, the balancing acts have to be focused on it.
(Authors note: This article is written as a paper noir with exuded cynicism reflecting in country studies as every nation wants its ideologies, which ultimately turn out to be that of the ongoing regime there, to gain domineering priority in conflict situations. In an advanced and aware world as it is considered to be today such approach can cause heavy human tragedy that will be as primitive as in the past conflicts with only limited short-term gains to a section of people. The idea here is to point out the hollowness of selective geostrategic decision making. Taming the anteforce in the system can offer a solution under similar situations. The unfolding Ukraine scenario is just another moot sample of human apathy to quality life. But there is money in it…)
EndNote
1 The trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States formed on 15 September 2021.
