Ukraine NATO membership in not on agenda, says German Chancellor

Ukraine’s membership is not on The North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO’s agenda, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Friday. “I also made it clear in Moscow and in my visit that this option, Ukraine’s membership of NATO, is not on the table and will not take place,” he said during an interview with German public broadcaster ZDF.

“I said publicly that we all know that Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the alliance’s agenda today,” he added. “That was understood by the American President that was also understood by the French President.”

Scholz said he shares Russian President Vladimir Putin’s security concern and clarified to Putin that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO.

“The Russians were worried about the control issue of their security. Putin was worried that NATO has a military setup and rockets in Ukraine targeting Russian territory. That is why we tried to make it clear that this will not occur,” he elaborated.

Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership appeared to be one of the core disputes that caused the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

In February 2019, the then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to becoming a member of NATO and the European Union after the parliament passed the bill.

Poroshenko told the leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine days after he signed the amendment that joining NATO was a guarantee of security for Ukraine.

On the Russian side, Putin says Russia needs to lay down ‘red lines’ to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO saying that Ukraine’s growing ties with the alliance could make it a launchpad for NATO missiles targeted at Russia.

The United States and other Ukraine alliances have tried to avoid war by deescalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

However, the Kremlin criticized the United States and NATO for failing to address the fundamental security concerns of Moscow, demanding that NATO stop its eastward expansion and that strike weapons not be deployed near Russia’s borders.

Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 after the efforts to deter war failed.

Russian armed forces made rapid progress and had reportedly encircled several Ukrainian cities or facilities in the first week.

They also reportedly gained control of Kherson, a port city in Ukraine’s south.

However, the Russian forces were met with strong resistance from the Ukrainian military, especially on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.

The resistance from Ukrainian forces and Russia’s own logistical difficulties has slowed down the Russian military’s speed of the advance, the UK’s Ministry of Defense said.

A United Nations official said around 1.2 million people have fled Ukraine as the war entered its ninth day. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi confirmed the staggering figure in a tweet on March 4.

Grandi said on Thursday that in his four decades of work in refugee emergencies, he had rarely seen an exodus as rapid as the one in Ukraine.

“Hour by hour, minute by minute, more people are fleeing the terrifying reality of violence. Countless have been displaced inside the country,” he said in a statement.

The UN also said that, as of March 3, they had recorded 1,006 civilian casualties in the context of Russia’s military action against Ukraine, mostly caused by shelling and airstrikes.

The agency said that 331 civilian deaths have been recorded, including 19 children, while 675 have been injured, including 31 children. The UN says, however, that the “real toll is much higher.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday that, to date, 9,200 Russian soldiers have been killed in the war. Russian authorities have reported that 498 of its service members have been killed.

 

US Senator Lindsey Graham calls for the assassination of Russian President Putin

Reportedly, a senior US Senator, Lindsey Graham has called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has sparked widespread condemnation and reflects another example of Washington’s failure to adhere to the rules of law within the international community. 

The White House tried to distance itself from the remarks made by the South Carolina Senator saying they do not reflect the position of the United States. 

Some congress members did come out and criticized Lindsey Graham’s remarks. The problem is that his statements represent the US foreign policy stance. 

Graham, who is widely viewed as an influential Senator within the Republican Party on military and foreign-policy matters, made public what many senators and the US foreign policymakers think privately. 

Speaking to the US media, Graham called for a hit job on a sovereign independent head of state saying "I'm hoping someone in Russia will understand ... you need to take this guy out back any means possible.”

The hawkish Senator carried on with his threatening rhetoric, telling the US media that Russians must rise up and take Putin down.

He also carried on his intimidating statements on social media platforms, making similar calls against the Russian President.

The Senator’s statements also reflect the inability of the United States to think, act and behave rationally in times of crisis. 

As the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it “Unfortunately, in such an extremely tense atmosphere, and even more so in countries such as the United States, a hysterical Russophobic fit is being whipped up. These days, not everyone manages to maintain sobriety, I would even say sanity, and many lose their mind.”

The Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, denounced Graham’s remarks as unacceptable and outrageous, saying the degree of Russophobia and hatred in the US towards Russia was off the charts. 

In a statement posted on the embassy’s social media platforms, Antonov said “It is impossible to believe that a senator of a country that promotes its moral values as a guiding star for all mankind could afford to call for terrorism as a way to achieve Washington’s goals in the international arena.”

Washington’s assassination of anti-imperialist figures and independent leaders hasn’t been off the US foreign policy agenda. 

In the 1960s, the US government put together several attempts and plans to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro using various methods such as exploding cigars, murderous mobsters, an exploding seashell, and the infamous poison pen.

Also in the 1960s, many political figures inside the US itself were assassinated, including one of history’s most iconic black civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King as well as another very iconic black civil rights leader Malcom X. 

After the murder of former US President John F. Kennedy which shocked America, successive President’s claimed enough was enough and signed executive orders prohibiting the use of assassinations as a tactic of the US operatives.

Unfortunately, American executive orders are not worth the paper they are written on. 

There are also terrorist leaders who worked hand in hand with Washington and were later assassinated by US Special Forces instead of being captured and put on trial. Critics argue taking these individuals for instance, Osama Bin Laden, to an independent International tribunal would have exposed the level of coordination with leaders of the now many terror groups. 

Over the years, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, another sovereign head of state survived multiple American-backed attempts on his life. 
 
As lately as January 2020, the US carried out the assassination of Iran’s top military commander General Qassem Soleimani and the highest-ranking military commander in Iraq Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis with drone strikes in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport under the direct order of former President Donald Trump.

The United Nations declared the US drone strikes against the late Iranian anti-terror war hero as unlawful and an arbitrary killing that violated the UN charter.

Again, that hasn’t stopped the US senators such as Lindsey Graham from adding fuel to the fire in Ukraine by openly calling for the killing of President Putin. 

Some congress members have hit back at the Republican Senator which critics say is aimed at distancing the US from any involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which the US and its NATO partners sparked in the first place. 

Representative IIhan Omar wrote, “I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “This is irresponsible, dangerous and unhinged.”

Representative Matt Gaetz wrote, “When has Sen. Graham encouraging regime change ever ended badly?”

Even Texas Senator Ted Cruz noted, “This is an exceptionally bad idea, use massive economic sanctions; boycott Russian oil and gas; provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.”

The problem with Cruz’s thought process is that Ukraine has lashed out at the US-led NATO alliance for abandoning Kyiv. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has chastised the bloc for its refusal to establish a no-fly zone over the country amid the ongoing Russian offensive that hit Ukraine last week.

Zelensky, in a videotaped address, told the United States and its NATO allies that people will die because of you in the country.

He said, “NATO knowingly approved the decision not to close the skies over Ukraine. We believe that the NATO countries themselves have created a narrative that the alleged closing of the sky over Ukraine will provoke direct Russian aggression against NATO”.

He also slammed the lack of aid from the alliance, saying that it has only managed to authorize a small fuel delivery for the country. While Ukraine has been recognized as a special partner of the alliance, NATO has repeatedly reminded the Ukrainian President that it would not go into a war with Russia for the sake of his country.

Zelensky said “All that the NATO alliance could do today was to allocate some 50 tons of diesel fuel for Ukraine through its procurement system.”

He also lashed out at the latest NATO meeting saying "today there was a NATO summit, a weak summit, a confused summit, a summit where it was clear that not everyone considers the battle for Europe's freedom to be the number one goal," Zelensky said

A similar statement has been made by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, who said the ongoing conflict has exposed NATO’s weakness.

Speaking to Ukrainian media, Kuleba said “before the war, Ukrainian people believed that NATO was strong, while the EU was weak and indecisive. And after the war began, the people saw that the opposite was true.”

The top Ukrainian diplomat also claims that the European Union gave us a candidate status and prospects of membership, while NATO could not decide on anything. 

The reality is that Ukraine has not been given an EU candidate status, because a country needs to live up to certain conditions before attaining such a status.

The EU Parliament has only passed a non-binding resolution that states it would welcome Kyiv’s membership application. 

It’s actually not quite a difficult process to both enter or leaves the EU as Turkey and Britain found out. 

The Belarusian President, meanwhile, pointed out that the US and its Western allies want to prolong the conflict.

Alexander Lukashenko said, “All of NATO & EUmembers keep shouting about ending war in Ukraine. In public, but what they need there is war, the more of it, the better.

Lukashenko also said that the West is not allowing Ukraine to make a move to end the conflict.

 

Russia and China getting ready to create New World Order

Fifty years after Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong’s historic 1972 handshake, the geopolitical world order is once again reshaping. The world is now watching a growing alliance between Beijing and Moscow.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in early February this year on the opening day of the Beijing Winter Olympics.

The meeting could have granted an opportunity for Xi to urge Putin to pursue diplomacy with Ukraine and de-escalate tensions between the two countries. Instead, the Chinese regime appeared to have looked the other way as Russia planned its advances on its neighbor.

Many have described the February 04 meeting as a show of solidarity between the two regimes. The occasion was marked by a lengthy joint statement in which the two countries announced a no limits partnership, in which there were no forbidden areas of cooperation.

The 5,000-word communiqué also expressed opposition to the further enlargement of NATO and called on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries … and to exercise a fair and objective attitude toward the peaceful development of other States.

Such a detailed statement clearly defined the nature of China and Russia’s emerging relationship, retired Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis told The Epoch Times. It is one wherein Xi and Putin are bent on stifling the West, dismantling NATO, and creating a new world order, he said.

Less than three weeks after the Putin-Xi meeting, Russia began its assault on Ukraine. Maginnis described the communique as a gentlemen’s agreement behind what many would consider very much an alliance. Putin, he added, is hopeful this newly forged alliance will help carry Russia through its invasion.

Behind the scenes, Maginnis suspects that the Xi-Putin rendezvous granted the “geopolitical back up and financial assurances” to Russia to soften the economic blow from Western sanctions. That the Chinese regime has not criticized Moscow for its attack on Ukraine could be a sign of Beijing’s silent support, he added.

“Xi is very likely encouraged by what the West is doing—or more appropriately, not doing,” Maginnis said. Russia has faced universal condemnation from the West, while receiving aid from several countries. Sanctions are also coming in from many directions in an effort to slow the Russian regime’s unprovoked assault.

But what’s most important to the Chinese regime is the fact that the United States is not sending troops to Ukraine, he noted.

In light of the raft of Western sanctions, Maginnis said he suspects “Xi will help launder whatever finances that Putin, the oligarchs, and the Russian government at large needs to keep moving forward.”

As the conflict in Ukraine continues to escalate and the Chinese regime continues its ambitions to seize Taiwan, he said that the United States and NATO have found themselves in a new cold war.

“Xi is seeking a new world order, as evidenced by many of his writings and speeches,” Maginnis said. This new world order, he added, is one that is “far more accepting of an authoritarian regime, rather than the liberal values that formulated the world order post-World War II.”

On the heels of a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and its handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, some countries are starting to consider the United States a second-rate world power, according to Maginnis. Some of these countries may soon be asking “Who do we want to align ourselves with?” and “Who’s going to really run things in the future?”

Maginnis didn’t consider Putin’s behavior to be “crazy” for invading Ukraine, but said that “Putin is pragmatic, not afraid of pulling the trigger if it’s going to benefit him in the long-term.”

With Russia and China working alongside each other to usurp the West, he said, “Taiwan should be greatly concerned, because it’s true of Xi as well; he would pull the same trigger when he feels like it will benefit him the most.”

Beijing is watching what the United States is doing in Ukraine. One thing to watch, Maginnis said, is whether or not the United States will transport or relocate critical assets out of the Pacific arena to Europe. Secondly, he added that Xi is also watching the effects of the sanctions on Russia’s ability to take on Ukraine.

America’s military presence in the Pacific, combined with the impact of crushing economic sanctions, remains the primary concerns of the Chinese regime as it eyes Taiwan, he said.

Can United States afford to ban export of oil and gas from Russia?

The United States may survive cutting off Russian oil and gas imports over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, but it would almost certainly strike a massive financial toll.

Political support for banning Russian energy imports is growing in both parties, and the White House said the topic is under discussion — though it said President Joe Biden had not made a decision.  

Oil prices are already skyrocketing, and the Brent crude oil international benchmark hit a 13-year high of US$139 per barrel on fears of a ban after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US was engaging in an active discussion about the possibility.

Russia is one of the world’s largest oil producers, with a 12% global market share, according to an analysis by JPMorgan.

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia was exporting about 6.5 million barrels daily, of which 4.3 million barrels per day were going to Europe and the United States. The US was importing about 600,000 to 800,000 barrels from Russia daily — or about 8% of the country’s supply of crude oil and petroleum products.

Cutting off that spigot will lead to higher prices unless more supply comes from somewhere.

It’s possible that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could decide to increase supply, but there has been no indication from such countries that they will produce and export more oil to replace Russia’s, the JPMorgan analysis warned.

“The Biden team is already calling Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and others, I imagine,” said Morgan Bazilian, Director of the Colorado-based Payne Institute for Public Policy. “But their diplomatic leverage on those countries is limited, and they have shown very little appetite to be influenced by Biden and the US.”

Relations between Saudi Arabia and the Biden administration are decidedly chilled following Democratic criticism of the killing of former Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who is widely believed to have been murdered by Saudi agents.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is the day-to-day ruler of Saudi Arabia, also recently told The Atlantic in an interview, “I do not care whether Biden misunderstood things about him.”

Senior US officials also took a rare trip to Venezuela, another OPEC member, this weekend for talks about potentially easing sanctions on oil exports from that country.

Another option to take the pressure off a ban on Russian oil would be to increase US shale production, although that growth would be limited by the necessary labor and infrastructure demands, according to the JPMorgan analysis.

It is more expensive to produce oil from shale fields in West Texas than Saudi Arabia. The higher international prices could lead to increased production in the US given the economics, though relief at the pump would be a bigger question.

“Saudi Arabia is known for having the cheapest, sweetest crude oil — it takes the least amount of additional refining, very cheap to process, and it's very cheap to get out of the ground,” Gernot Wagner, a climate economist and visiting professor at Columbia Business School, told The Hill. “West Texas crude is a lot harder to get out of the ground.”

It costs less than US$10 per barrel to extract Saudi Arabian oil, whereas digging up West Texas crude costs about US$70 per barrel, according to Wagner.

“So it only really pays to get it out of the ground if the oil price is well above those US$70,” he said.

Bazilian warned that a ramp-up in domestic production would face a variety of hurdles, such as the time it takes to start pumping, financial restrictions imposed by Wall Street and an insufficient workforce.

Another wild card that could help fill the gaping hole left by Russia poses its own set of complications, Iran.

If the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal is restored, it could lead to the waiving of US sanctions, enabling Tehran to ramp up its crude supplies by one million barrels per day over the next two months, the JPMorgan analysis stated.

Bazilian described as deeply flawed the notion that cutting off Russian oil could lead to energy independence.

What would be more sensible, he argued, would be to focus more on energy security — a mix of supply, demand, markets and institutions — while finding a way to entice the US industry in the short to medium term.

“That will be tough for an administration who has climate change as a top tier priority,” Bazilian said. “Of course, that priority is not top tier today.”

Echoing these sentiments, Wagner likened a pivot away from Russian oil sources to a switch from a fast-food hamburger to a highly caloric vegan burger.

“It still produces CO2 emissions,” Wagner said. “It's still going to give you a heart attack. It might even be worse for you right at the end of the day because we don't really know what eating vegan burger does to you.”

And that sense of uncertainty is dominating global energy markets right now — in large part, Wagner explained, because we don’t know what Putin’s going to do next. But from a purely economic perspective, he said, there are certain advantages to cutting off Russian oil altogether.

“You basically rip off the risk premium,” Wagner added. “Suddenly, there's no uncertainty about what Russia will do next because it doesn't matter.”

Biden advisers weigh Saudi Arabia trip for more oil

According to Axios, President Joe Biden’s advisers are discussing a possible visit to Saudi Arabia this spring to help repair relations and convince the Kingdom to pump more oil.

A hat-in-hand trip would illustrate the gravity of the global energy crisis driven by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Biden has chastised Saudi Arabia, and the CIA believes its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was involved in the dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

The possibility also shows how Russia's invasion is scrambling world's alliances, forcing the United States to reorder its priorities — and potentially recalibrating its emphasis on human rights.

Biden officials are in Venezuela this weekend to meet with the government of President Nicolás Maduro. Some Republicans and Democrats in Washington suggest Venezuela's oil could replace Russia's, according to the New York Times.

Any visit to the Persian Gulf would come amid a busy presidential travel schedule during the next few months.

Biden will likely take trips to Japan, Spain, Germany and, potentially, Israel, Axios has also learnt.

A White House spokesperson told Axios, “We don’t have any international travel to announce at this time, and a lot of this is premature speculation.”

President Obama visited Saudi Arabia more often than any of his predecessors, a total of four trips, but relations frayed over the wars in Yemen and Syria, as well as differences about how to deal with Iran.

President Trump made restoring the relationship a priority, and boasted about arms sales to the Kingdom.

He questioned the CIA's conclusion bin Salman was involved in Khashoggi's murder and defiantly refused to condemn him. "Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden called the Kingdom a "pariah," and early in his term, released an unclassified report assessing MBS approved the operation to "capture or kill" Khashoggi.

Bin Salman isn't making it easier on Biden to repair their relations.

He appeared to go out of his way to aggravate the White House during an interview with the Atlantic published last week.

“We don’t have the right to lecture you in America,” he said. “The same goes the other way.”

Sanctions against Russia's oil exports, including a possible ban on importing Russian oil into the US, would both elevate worldwide gas prices and stoke domestic inflation.

Biden officials want to preserve options for the president, including the chance to make amends with the Saudis and persuade them to increase their oil production.

Discussions about a potential visit are still in the early phases and officials cautioned a visit is far from finalized and may not happen.

Russian actions are also factoring into the president's other planned travel.

The invasion has sparked an international refugee crisis and raised worldwide prices, so the president wants to ensure US allies remain united. His in-person attendance at summit meetings also highlights how concern about COVID-19 has waned.

Biden's first trip this year is likely to Japan, potentially in May. He's set to meet with the other leaders of the Quad: Japan, India and Australia.

In June, he's scheduled to attend a G7 meeting in Germany. That will be followed by a NATO summit in Spain.

The European itinerary could also be expanded to include a stop in Israel, where Biden told Prime Minister Naftali Bennett he wanted to visit this spring.

Russia publishes an official list of states unfriendly to it

A list of foreign states that Russia considers as having committed unfriendly actions against Russia, Russian companies and citizens was published on the Russian government's website on Monday. 

The countries, international organizations and territories considered unfriendly include Australia, Albania, Andorra, United Kingdom, including Jersey, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, the member states of the European Union, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, San Marino, North Macedonia, Singapore, USA, Taiwan, Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, Japan." Russia lists Taiwan as being part of China.

A complimentary item of legislation from Sunday states that Russian citizens and companies must apply for a special permit to deal with unfriendly foreign entities. 

The list was created as part of a series of laws to follow a Saturday decree by Russian President Vladamir Putin for temporary economic measures to ensure the financial stability of the Russian Federation.

Part of the measures the list was to enforce was the law that allows Russian citizens, companies and state bodies to pay back foreign creditors in rubles. 

While Israel has condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, it was not included on the list. Israel has taken on a mediation role during the conflict, seeing Prime Minister Naftali Bennett flying to Moscow on Saturday to speak with Putin. 

Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Implications for South Asia

According to South Asia Journal, the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine is creating ripples in the global geopolitics. Though, the western media analysis of it as a likely cause for the world war seems far-fetched, the horrors of the limited war, undoubtedly are visible for all to see.

While the role and actions/inactions of major powers Russia, United States, Europe and NATO as a whole are to be seen and analyzed by many, in their respective ways, it would be interesting to make an assessment of implications that it will have on south Asia.

Two major powers in the region, China and India, have found themselves in an unenviable situation. Both have very close politico-strategic relations with Russia but neither wants to take an open stance against Ukraine either, on account of their proximity with US-led Europe.

It is evident that both have failed to openly support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They have asked for peace and abstained from three crucial UN meetings on the issue, leaving Russia to resorting the UNSC Veto and fend for itself.

China has significant economic stakes in Ukraine. It is the largest trading partner. Ukraine is one of the major stakeholders of Xi Jinping’s ambitious political masterpiece Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project. Both Russia and Ukraine are military suppliers to China as well.

In spite of Chinese political relations with Russia with no upper limit, its reactions in the ongoing conflict indicate that it was caught off-guard.

It could not anticipate Putin’s determination and failed to issue relevant advisory to its citizens in time. While Singapore and Taiwan issued guidelines to their limited number of citizens in Ukraine as early mid-February, the Chinese embassy was found clueless about the impending conflict.

Further, China has more of ideological and strategic affinities with Russia rather economic. The bilateral trade between the two at US$ 147 billion is about 2% of Chinese global trade. Its trade and economic stakes with Europe is much more important. Irrespective of the frequent diplomatic and political skirmishes with the United States, China knows very well that it cannot afford to get into a full-throttle political, economic or diplomatic battle with the US and its European allies.

India has almost 20,000 citizens in Ukraine, mostly students studying medicine there. It has major political, strategic, diplomatic and economic relations with Russia and cannot afford to antagonize it.

A major chunk Indian military supplies, including hardware and spares, along with S-400 air defense system too, come from Russia. Though in recent years, its dependence on Russia has reduced considerably, mainly due to import diversification to countries like the US, Israel, France and also due to indigenous ramping up of production and R&D capabilities in defense.

Russia has on all occasions in the last five decades stood by India, politically and diplomatically, including using the crucial veto in the UNSC once on the Kashmir issue.

Similarly, Ukraine has good working relations with India but has voted openly against India on its nuclear tests in 1998, supported the UNSC sanctions and provided a fair amount of military hardware to Pakistan, to be used against India. But of late, relations between the two are on an upswing and India would not like to jeopardize its relations with either.

A comparative cost-benefit analysis of national interests though certainly outweighs any explicit diplomatic hysteria on the lines, demonstrated by the west against Russia currently.

India is currently indulged in a delicate balancing act. It has expressed its concerns against invasion to Russia at the highest levels privately while appreciating their security concerns. It has also conveyed to the US and major European countries of its need to perceived neutrality.

At the same time, it is working in tandem with both Russian and Ukrainian governments, to ensure safety and evacuation of its citizens, at the earliest.

As for the direct and short-term implications, trade and military supplies for both China and India, are certain to be affected. Both are preparing for a significant disruption in their exports to the two warring nations.

For India, the timely supply of remaining S-400 systems are of critical significance given the uncertain state of its current politico-military relationship with China. The middle kingdom on the other hand, must be watching the outcome of this conflict keenly since it could provide it an opportunity to re-orient its possible invasion of Taiwan strategy in due course of time.

A good number Pakistanis stuck in Ukraine are students. Initially confounded and even putting up a statement of financial limitations, its government now is trying to evacuate its citizens.

India claims that many Pakistani and Turkish citizens have been evacuated from the war zone, by identifying themselves as Indian and hoisting Indian flags on their vehicles since India has strongly demanded the two warring sides, to ensure safety of its citizens who neither side wishes to antagonize.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visited Russia the day, Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine. For Pakistan this became a very awkward moment since the west became furious with his meeting with the perceived aggressor, Putin at that very moment.

It is also believed that National Bank of Pakistan became the first casualty with the US imposing a penalty of US$ 55 million on it while politically, the country remains at the receiving end of western fury.

Bangladesh with about 3,000 citizens stuck in Ukraine, too has good working relations with both countries. With Ukraine, its economic relations are growing rapidly and it is also helping Bangladesh in developing infrastructure, steel and ports. Similarly, Russia is politically too important to be disowned and criticized by it.

Nepal too has few citizens left in the war zone that have reportedly been evacuated by the Indian authorities and brought back home.

Maldives, the tiny island nation in the Indian Ocean has started feeling the impact of war since a considerable number of its foreign tourists involve both Russian and Ukrainians.

Though the south Asian region remains a bit far off from the battle raging on yet it has certainly affected countries there.

The Russo-Ukraine war has also resulted in delicate diplomatic balancing by countries around the world and China and India, primarily are on the radar.

The United Nations has not been successful in negotiating ceasefire, which raises another big question mark on the utility of the world body. The efficacy of the US-led NATO too raises doubts, both among its members and non-members. However, to prevent widespread destruction and disorder, the early the war is stopped the better that would be for the world and the humanity.