Russia’s Putin put his nuclear forces on alert when the war in Ukraine reached the fourth day, surprising everyone who thought the outcome of the invasion was but obvious. The non capitulation of the Ukrainian leader and the common citizens would have stunned not only Putin and his commanders but also the world at large. This nuclear threat of Putin has been pooh poohed by all European leaders as everyone understands the ground realities. That is also the main reason for Moscow to be eager for talks with Ukraine. This war also proved another very important assumption that had been doing the rounds across the world. It has proven that the conventional wisdom supporting war as a means of subjugation and dominance is dying a natural death. The US administration has termed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s order putting on alert the country’s nuclear deterrence as a “rhetorical exercise intended to manufacture threats that don’t exist in order to justify further aggression.”
But, in a significant development an overwhelming majority of people in South Korea have expressed their desire for domestic nuclear weapons capability. A poll last week shows that 70 per cent of South Koreans want to go nuclear in the face of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and nuke-powered China’s domination as a global player. The poll made by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has found that South Koreans overwhelmingly want nuclear weapons even though they believe the country’s alliance with the United States and their own military strength would help them face any crisis created by North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. This view of the South Koreans may be relevant because of the recent events enacted by the US administration in Afghanistan and its initial hesitation in sending forces to Ukraine that emboldened the Russian military to invade. It is no doubt the South Korean reaction stems from the fact that North Korea has been unpredictable and a rogue nation for far too long. But clubbing China with North Korea may not be appropriate. For instance, the world observed how China abstained from the UN Security Council vote against Russia but has been dancing around with contradictory ever since. This is primarily because China has much too much global trade and commerce interests to be involved in a prolonged war and possibly face global economic isolation. It may sound hilarious that China has, a day earlier, not only invited the United States to participate in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but also expressed its willingness to actively participate in the US led programme called B3W (Build Back Better World). This goes to show that the mighty economic empire held by China does not feel the need to be excessively military in its global outlook. The exclusion of Russia from global financial system SWIFT demonstrates the new power of economy that has the whole world held within limited but very strong economic bond. If a nation like Russia can be grievously wounded by means of economic sanctions, it is a lesson for all nations that tanks, missiles and warships will no more be decisive in future battles. The future wars will be fought through banks, markets and economic decisions.
In this backdrop, India and its leadership have to, per force, rethink on the nation’s future. A bulk of the national budget is being swallowed by de-r fence spending over the past half a century while core matters concerning national economy have been sidelined. If there is a conventional war in the future, effective territorial defence can happen not by the armed forces alone but a united populace as demonstrated by Ukraine. What we see in India is worrisome because social systems have been very divided since ages. The divides are deepening even further because of current political leadership. In such a situation, the armed forces are turning into ceremonial showpieces while the economy is getting crippled. When nation’s interests override political games, then only genuine decisions can be adopted.