The Russian military action is limited to approximately 116,000 sq km out of 603,550 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory. It is a limited border war with spillage into deeper areas at times and is intended to degrade the opponents’ military capabilities. The issue arises out of a deeper NATO vs Russia rivalry and immature handling of the crisis.
The two warring sides, NATO and Russia, otherwise conscious keepers worldwide, have shown themselves to be very immature when handling their affairs. Both sides couldn’t follow their advice on diplomacy and conflict, which they usually dish to other countries worldwide. In addition to their immaturity, they have tried to escalate the situation by enlisting other countries through bribes, threats and blackmail. Regional conflicts have global consequences, but not to the extent of the current crisis where the rest of the world suffers from a display of Machismo by the warring sides.
Two days ago, U.S. President Joe Biden warned Russia of repercussions if it used tactical nuclear weapons. In the interview with CBS News, Biden said that the nature of the response would depend on Russia’s actions. The U.S. President cautioned Moscow of the consequences of nuclear or chemical weapons use in Ukraine. He said this “would alter the face of battle more than anything since World War II.”
There will be repercussions, they will become more marginalized in the world than ever before, and the magnitude of Russian actions will decide the U.S. response, Biden added, alluding to a potential reaction from Washington.
Joe Biden was replying to an avoidable hyperbole question. The world leaders should not let him indulge in such rhetoric. It is in the interest of the European Union, and in the past, they have already expressed their displeasure with Joe Biden’s gaffes. Even in the U.S. citizens’ welfare, their motormouth President has to be restrained. Surprisingly, Japan and New Zealand, the cheerleaders of nuclear non proliferation and allies of the U.S., have not expressed their displeasure with Joe Biden’s remarks.
According to Russia’s military doctrine, the President decides when to deploy nuclear weapons. It is used in response to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against the Russian Federation or its allies, as well as in cases of invasion of Russia when the state’s very existence is at risk. On the contrary, The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy and has said that it “reserves the right to use” nuclear weapons in the event of a confrontation. The heads of the nuclear weapons powers, except for the United States, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and the United Kingdom, do not engage in nuclear war rhetoric.
Russia’s claims that it only responded to the U.S. President’s statement are also immature. The minimum it could have done, if not already done, was to raise it diplomatically with the U.S. and the world community. Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first to raise the Nuclear war issue at the start of the Ukrainian crisis. Following the invasion of Ukraine, Putin warned that Russia is a “potent” nuclear power and that any interference would have consequences opponents have never experienced. It was followed by attempts to downplay it by stating that nuclear war should never be fought and there would be no winners. In his remarks, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken labelled Putin’s threats following the invasion as reckless, deadly nuclear sabre rattling. Nuclear war threatens the entire world, and it does not matter who starts it. The U.S. and Russia are not above the norms of the international community.
Liz Truss, as a candidate for Prime Minister’s job in the United Kingdom, had expressed her readiness to use nuclear weapons if necessary. “I am prepared to act,” she said. She wants to follow the steps of the former PM Margret Thatcher, who threatened to nuke Argentina for a small inconsequential Falkland Islands, once a colonial power hotspot.
The weaponization of Zaporizhzhya NPP
The peaceful nature of the Zaporizhzhya NPP is threatened by the actions of the United States and Russia. The capture of the nuclear power plant, a byproduct of the NATO – Russian immaturity, has taken a turn for the worse. The nuclear threat is real for the countries around it and the whole world. Brinkmanship has led to the shelling of the city and even the plant’s periphery, and a high voltage international politics has erupted. IAEA has only worsened the situation by giving into politics. The U.S.-controlled Ukrainians and the Russians have accused each other of shelling the nuclear power station, and the danger of the NPP becoming another Chornobyl is very real.
