On February 27-28, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, visited India, a notable event in the context of the radical transformation of the world order, which is today progressing with unprecedented rapidity.
Geopolitical context of von der Leyen’s trip to India
The most significant element of these changes was the process launched by the new US administration, radically altering the basic starting positions and goals of the system in their own country. Moreover, this process is developing in such a way that the leader of the group of countries only recently designated as the ‘generalised West’ is turning into the main enemy of the rest; namely, those represented by Ursula von der Leyen on the international stage.
It is unlikely that the ‘Trump team’ shares with their newly found allies ‘materials’, including the notorious rare earth minerals and Ukraine. Despite the apparent simplicity and even primitiveness of the behaviour of the generalised West’s troublemaker (business as usual), in reality he – perhaps without even noticing it – challenged the powerful (but not all-powerful) backstage with its ‘transhumanism’, COVID-19, ‘economic green transition’ and other similar scams.
On a subconscious level, all of this is being rejected. This rejection is only strengthening through the public representatives of von der Leyen’s backstage, who are juggling the word ‘democracy’ in any given case (including during the visit that is the topic of this article). Unfortunately, it is precisely such figures and narratives that prevail in the Western part of the European continent today.
Facing the unexpected rise of a powerful adversary, efforts are underway to unite anyone who might have grievances against them. Take Canada, for example, where the once-revered hockey legend Wayne Gretzky has suddenly been labeled a ‘traitor’, while Alexander Ovechkin is now embraced almost out of spite. Similarly, Brussels has been paying closer attention to China, a nation the EU, along with the US, was recently locked in a ‘trade war’ with and frequently criticised for various alleged ‘violations’.
The same motive, amongst others, was undoubtedly present in von der Leyen’s trip to India. Although it must be said that, previously, there was also quite distinct competition between the EU and the US in the struggle for influence over one of the de facto leading world powers. Together with China, the EU and US make up the three-main trade and economic partners of India. Let us note two points that the EU apparently considered contributing to the success of von der Leyen’s mission; both are related to innovations in the political course of Trump’s administration.
The first is due to his general intention to eliminate the almost catastrophic permanent deficit in trade with the outside world, which in recent years has exceeded $1 trillion. Trump decided to solve this problem using the method of ‘harsh surgery without anaesthesia’ (how effective it will be is a separate question), namely by increasing trade tariffs on almost all partners. India, i.e. Washington’s most important foreign policy partner, was also among them. This issue was met with considerable caution in New Delhi (as well as everywhere else) and was high on the agenda of bilateral discussions during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in mid-February.
The second point was rather scandalous. Right before Modi’s visit, several hundreds (out of about 700,000) of illegal Indian migrants in the United States were airlifted back to their homeland. For this purpose, C-17s, which are designed to transport trained paratroopers, were used. Allegedly, during the 48-hour flight, illegal migrants (including women, children and the elderly) were also chained to their seats. Moreover, they were not only not fed, but also not allowed to go to the lavatory.
It should be acknowledged that Modi, who is perhaps the most authoritative leader of India during the entire period of the country’s independence, did not allow this incident, which had caused a stir within the Indian public, to influence the course and results of the aforementioned visit to the United States. By the way, it is possible that the Trump administration will find much of interest if it considers the question of who carried out such an obviously provocative action for India and for what purposes.
On the results of von der Leyen’s trip to India
Amid the rapidly shifting global landscape, recent developments seemed poised to boost the success of a visit to India by the head of the organisation asserting its right to represent Europe on the international stage. The competition for influence over a country whose presence at the global decision-making table is steadily growing has become increasingly relevant – not just for this organisation, but for other similar trans-European institutions as well.
The main opponent in this struggle is the recently key ally, who is rapidly becoming the main enemy. It is still dangerous, however, to openly declare him such and the attacks of the ‘left-liberal-green’ trash ruling the continent are still aimed at Russia, i.e. a potential partner of the new US administration. It seems this is all set up to resolve some of the particularly dangerous international problems that hinder the reformatting of the ‘Great Game’ towards greater compliance with the emerging geopolitical realities.
On the eve of von der Leyen’s arrival in New Delhi, Western commentators unanimously predicted that she would try to make the ‘issue’ of developing relations between India and Russia the centre of the upcoming negotiations against the background of ‘unprovoked aggression’ in Ukraine. However, there is reason to believe that the guest was made aware of the undesirability of publicly voicing something like this during her stay in the country. Therefore, comments about the negotiations after their having taken place only say that the parties discussed a ‘peaceful settlement of the situation in Ukraine’.
Von der Leyen first met with Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar and then with Prime Minister Modi; trade and economic aspects of bilateral relations were central during the talks. The main outcome of the negotiations was the parties’ declared intention to conclude a free trade agreement by the end of this year – something that has been discussed by teams of specialists since 2022.
However, this is perhaps the first time that defence and security are so prominent in Indian-European relations. This has been a priority of Washington’s efforts in recent years to involve India in the anti-Chinese web being formed in the Indo-Pacific region. In the struggle for influence on India, will the EU try to ‘beat the trump card’ of an increasingly formal ally? How are the ‘trans-Europeans’ going to reconcile this with attempts of the aforementioned flirting with China?
It seems appropriate to conclude with a remark of the most general kind. Let us, once again, note the complete futility of any attempts to predict the prospects for the development of the global situation, as well as any long-term government planning in the context of the dramatic breakdown of the former world order taking place today. That is, the strategy of ‘acting on current circumstances’ seems to be the only viable one at the moment.
Unless, of course, the forecaster has some mysterious knowledge known only to him, for example from the stars. The latest cryptogram drawn up by the jokers at The Economist (“Saturn has gone off somewhere. Whatever might this mean?”) is rich food for thought for people like that. The Economist, according to various claims, serves as a mouthpiece for the ‘financial backstage’, the power of which, apparently, is colossal. Once again, though, it is certainly not infinite, which is of fundamental importance in the question of the historical process’ driving forces.
The author, deprived of this kind of knowledge, will continue to limit himself to observing the current behaviour of the world’s leading players, trying to understand at least roughly what is happening at the global gaming table and why (here and now – and no further).
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the Asia-Pacific region
