Join WhatsApp Channel
Nothing can be more stupid than playing games with nukes. Even talking about using nuclear weapons, and that too in highly casual ways, is foolhardy, especially in a world that is already on edge.
The dangerous slide on nuclear weapons can be seen in many ways: allowing a nuclear treaty to expire, the New START Treaty of course; talking about moving nuclear weapons to the borders; and boasting of missiles and systems capable of reaching adversaries in minutes. The unbelievable rants are coming at a time when Russia and Ukraine have entered the fifth year of a scandalous conflict started by President Vladimir Putin under the fancy impression that it could be wrapped up in a few days.
The sad commentary on a war that has gone on for so many months is not just that hundreds of thousands on either side have died, nor even the hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. It is the clear folly of the principals not seeing the futility of carrying on a conflict that really has no winners or losers. The crazy part is that Moscow has declared that, in the absence of any treaty, there are now no limits to its missile deployment, and that development of the country’s nuclear forces is now an “absolute priority.”
The chilling comment from President Putin has been seen in the context of reports of Moscow fine-tuning its tactical nukes in Belarus and in the loud bombast of the Oreshnik, a mobile intermediate-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could reach London in just eight minutes. Belarus, a close ally of Russia and a steady friend in the war against Ukraine, has indicated that ten Oreshnik systems would be deployed in the country, clearly to the dismay of Europe.
But the talk of nukes is not all a one-way street. Moscow is now saying that its intelligence agency believes Britain and France are planning to secretly ship nuclear missiles into Ukraine, something Paris flatly denies and London has yet to respond to. According to reports, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service reported that the decision to transfer nuclear weapons and related capabilities was because of a perception that Kyiv sees very little chance of victory through its armed forces, and that Germany had declined to join this “dangerous venture.” “This information is extremely important,” the Kremlin’s spokesman said, making the point that it is a gross violation of international law and that Moscow would factor this into its position in negotiations on Ukraine.
Even without these twin disturbing developments, the entry of the conflict into a fifth year of hopelessness was well reflected when the last round of talks in Geneva concluded without much hope, with a third round now scheduled to start in Oman. Both Russia and Ukraine are still far apart, and much of the bottleneck seems to be on the ceasefire line, with Moscow apparently demanding the eastern region of the Donbas, including all the fortified areas. Kyiv is, expectedly, holding out adamantly, insisting that any territory ceded will not get through in a referendum, or, for that matter, is not allowed by the country’s constitution.
For Ukraine and Europe, it is also about the security of Ukraine, for there has long been the thinking that President Putin’s current adventure is just a start, and perhaps Kyiv is the first of the falling dominoes. That brings up the question of a European Stabilization Force, which Moscow vehemently objects to, saying that it would be a fair target. For Ukraine and many in Europe, giving President Putin what he wants is only feeding his appetite for more aggression, with parallels to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler freely drawn upon.
President Donald Trump has used a variety of ways to find a way out of the ongoing mess, but he also knows that it rests with the two main actors, with inputs from the neighbors. Washington will undoubtedly come in to play a major role, not just in providing security guarantees but also in the reconstruction phase, which will involve huge outlays.
There is perhaps some disappointment that President Trump did not devote much attention to the Ukraine conflict in his Tuesday State of the Union Address, other than a repeated claim that the war “would never have happened if I were President.” But given all the misplaced optimism of the recent past, he probably is waiting for some positive signs from his trusted aides out in the field.
Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.
