The war between Russia and Ukraine may end, but the hostilities would never cease. One may wonder how a mighty Russia cannot decisively defeat the small Ukraine. Remember how United States of America had to flee from Vietnam after killing many Vietnamese and scorching their land off all vegetation by napalm bombs. The last Americans had to be evacuated from the top of their embassy by helicopter. The US had to leave Afghanistan after surrendering the country to the Taliban, fighting it for long fourteen years. Therefore, as long as the national spirit sustains, the Ukrainians will fight to the last man and such determination cannot be defeated by any superpower.

The cold war between USA and European capitalist countries on one hand and Soviet Union and East European communist countries on the other ended with the implosion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Republics became separate countries; the East European countries abandoned communism and became democracies. On the eve of disbanding the Soviet Union, the constituent Republics surrendered their nuclear weapons to the biggest of them all, Russia.

During cold war period, the USA and European countries had created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to face the USSR militarily. The USSR too had formed the Warsaw Pact to meet NATO. After the implosion of the USSR, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, but the military pact of the West, NATO, not only remained but also expanded to the east European countries and slowly spread its tentacles to the erstwhile component states of USSR. 

Russia felt that the West was not satisfied with “defeating” USSR in the cold war, but also trying to squeeze it militarily. Russian president Vladimir Putin could not reconcile with the Western intention and feared his closest neighbor Ukraine going out to the West; hence, he decided to subdue it and attacked to keep it under his fold. Putin’s attack seemed crude and unjust, but the West was equally guilty of trying to militarily encircle Russia.

The hostilities will go on. Here it is to be examined why Russia was not attacked by the Western powers when Ukraine was being ravaged. It was the possession of nuclear weapons with Russia; the old deterrence worked. The West’s saber-rattling was somewhat subdued when Putin alerted his Nuclear forces to be ready for action.

But can deterrence work all the time in preventing a nuclear war?  Take for instance the case of India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors. Prime Minister Narendra Modi boasts that he dared Pakistan by his lightning strike and elimination of Pak’s terrorist base in Pakistan without Pakistan retaliating with army action. However, Pakistan must have considered the damage not worth retaliating as India’s version of the effectiveness of the attack was contested by impartial foreign press. In a war, truth is the first casualty and all one side claims may not be the Gospel truth. Leaders could exaggerate their achievement, and questioning it could be viewed as anti-national.

India has won all the past wars with Pakistan, but all ended in a truce, not abject submission. No territory captured in the war could be retained, every inch had to be returned. In 1971, Pakistan was made to surrender its East wing which became a separate country, Bangladesh. But India did not gain anything, it actually lost money and men who were honored as martyrs. It means all the breast-thumping over victory in war is for show, actually war has no gainers, winners too are losers.

Coming to nuclear war, which has not been fought till now; what happened in American action against Japan was an experiment to find its effect on the enemy. And the effect was so devastating that the captured land could be of no use to the captor, but a permanent liability. 

However, as the theoretical father of nuclear bomb, Albert Einstein, said, “the splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our mode of thinking, and thus drift to unparalleled catastrophe.” The nuclear bombing did not change the idea of war in peoples’ minds, they still think in terms of winning and gaining. Of course, it also resulted in deterrence, which is actually fear of unacceptable damage to oneself.

But will deterrence work with Pakistan? Yes, to some extent. But if in a war when the existence of Pakistan is threatened, it will definitely use the nuclear weapons. That may not happen. Yet Pakistan’s possession of nuclear bomb is a threat to India. Pakistan is an Islamic state and there is a possibility of it falling in the hands of Muslim fundamentalists who never worries about the consequence of their actions. The men of suicide squads believe that killing non-believers would lead them to a heaven where nubile girls are waiting for them. Nuclear weapons are not safe in their possession. The state may not be so unrealistic as to think in those lines, but a group of fanatic men of suicide tendencies could get control of the weapons. So, India cannot be complacent to believing in nuclear deterrence. 

What India should do to save the sub-continent from the danger of a nuclear war, regain its stature as the peace-loving leader of the Third World, and continue the crusade against nuclear weapon states (NWS) for speedy disarmament is to: 

1.    Decide to do away with its nuclear weapon assets and come to an agreement with Pakistan to make South Asia a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ). 

2.    Sign NPT and CTBT that are non-proliferation measures, (Signing the treaties would make India join the community of Nuclear Non-weapon States (NNWS).

3.    Take the leadership of the universal nuclear disarmament movement and expose NWS of their excuses for not destroying the nuclear arms in their possession.

All these may be considered going back to the Gandhian concept of non-violence and lack of gallantry.  If Gandhi were alive, he would have never allowed India going nuclear. He had said: “The West is today pining for wisdom. It is despairing of the multiplication of the atom bomb, because atom bombs mean utter destruction not merely of the West but of the whole world, as if the prophesy of the Bible was going to be fulfilled and there was to be a perfect deluge. It is up to you to tell the world of its wickedness and sin – that is the teaching of your teachers taught Asia.”

All these may fall on deaf ears of present-day leaders. They want to take the name of Gandhi to increase their popularity but care little for his precepts. They are boasting they will make India a world power militarily. Even common people are getting an impression that Gandhian methods may not work in modern times.

We should not forget that Gandhiji led a war to attain freedom, a war without weapons. And he won it against the mighty British Empire in which the sun never set. Another Mahatma – I will call him so – is Pope Francis. One of his Commandments hits the nail right on the head of the cause of today’s strife and wars.  He asks weapon manufacturers of the capitalist countries called democracies (which includes Russia and China now) to stop making weapons so that developing countries may not buy them to fight their neighbors instead of using the money for their development. 

The words of the two Mahatmas might fall on deaf years. But people of the world, irrespective of geographical boundaries, should listen to them for the survival of the world to be safe for their progeny. 

Let us give peace a chance. 

(The writer is an ex-soldier, journalist and author of the book “Nuclear Myths” published by Gandhi Media Centre, Delhi.)