Across decades of global conflicts, the United States has been accused of deploying a consistent strategy: instigate tensions, fuel wars through arms supplies, step in as mediator, and finally dominate post-war reconstruction using US corporations. This pattern not only secures Washington’s geopolitical influence but also sustains the powerful US military-industrial complex and multinational companies.
The Russia–Ukraine war provides a contemporary case study of this model in action. Meanwhile, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi offers a striking contrast—resisting American attempts at “mediation” during Indo-Pak tensions and protecting India’s strategic autonomy.
The US Model of War Diplomacy
1. Instigation: Diplomatic signals or military alliances are used to provoke insecurity in a region.
2. Arms Supply: Once conflict begins, Washington positions itself as the ally of one side, supplying advanced weaponry worth billions of dollars.
3. Diplomatic Intervention: After war fatigue sets in, the US projects itself as a global peacemaker.
4. Post-War Reconstruction: US corporations secure lucrative contracts for rebuilding infrastructure, financed by Western-led financial institutions.
This sequence ensures that every stage of conflict—destruction and reconstruction alike—benefits the US economy.
Case Study: Russia–Ukraine war
Origins of the Conflict
The roots of the current crisis lie in Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO, strongly encouraged by Washington. Russia viewed this as an existential threat, given NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. The result was Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
America’s Role
The US swiftly imposed sanctions on Russia and became Ukraine’s principal military backer. By 2023–24, Washington had committed tens of billions of dollars in weapons and aid, providing a financial windfall to US defense contractors such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. While Ukraine bore the brunt of devastation, the US arms industry experienced record growth.
Trump’s mediation ambitions
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed he could end the war “within 24 hours” if given the chance. His rhetoric positions him as a pragmatic dealmaker, but it also serves a personal ambition: winning global recognition, including a Nobel Peace Prize.
For Trump, mediation is not only about peace but also about projecting American dominance in post-war arrangements.
US corporations are already eyeing Ukraine’s reconstruction phase, with contracts in energy, defence, and infrastructure likely to be directed toward American firms. Thus, the Russia–Ukraine conflict demonstrates the full US cycle: instigation, arms trade, mediation, and reconstruction business.
India’s Resistance: Modi’s diplomacy of strategic autonomy
While the American model has succeeded elsewhere, India has resisted falling into it. During Operation Sindoor and heightened Indo-Pak tensions, Trump repeatedly offered to mediate between India and Pakistan, framing it as a step toward global peace. However, New Delhi clearly recognised the implications: accepting US mediation could internationalise bilateral disputes, create dependency, and invite external manipulation.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi firmly rejected Trump’s offers, affirming that Kashmir and related issues are strictly bilateral. This was a decisive diplomatic move. By refusing third-party involvement, India prevented the US from applying its war-profiteering model in South Asia. India’s approach reflected:
-Strategic autonomy in foreign policy.
-Clarity of national interest, avoiding unnecessary escalation.
-Strengthened credibility as a responsible regional power capable of resolving its own conflicts.
The United States’ war strategy “to instigate, arm, mediate, and profit” remains a defining feature of its global engagement. The Russia–Ukraine war illustrates how Washington’s involvement can simultaneously prolong conflicts and enrich its industries, while also enabling it to dominate post-war recovery.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demonstrated a contrasting path: rejecting external mediation, asserting sovereignty, and avoiding the pitfalls of dependence on American diplomacy. This approach highlights the importance of strategic autonomy, balanced diplomacy, and self-reliance for nations seeking to remain outside the cycle of war-driven profiteering.
In the emerging multipolar world, India’s stance provides an instructive example of how nations can preserve sovereignty while engaging globally on their own terms.
Comments