Developments in Russia-Ukraine War
The deadlocked ceasefire:
The intermediate ceasefire that the Trump administration has been seeking to put in place has now receded into the failed territory. When the ceasefire talks first started out, there was much alignment between the broad objectives of the US, Europe and Ukraine, based on the understanding that Ukraine needs to control as much of its lost territory as possible. However, Russia’s recalcitrance – and America’s courting of Russian demands – and new set of demands has shifted the talks into unchartered directions, leaving them stuck.
Russia’s reluctance to end the war through peaceful negotiations was initially reflected when it, through a series of intensive escalations, intensified the battle in the Kursk region, and in the process, drove out Ukrainian soldiers in the region, as it did not want Ukraine to use a piece of Russian territory as a bargaining chip in any negotiations. Thereafter, Putin rejected Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire as a non-starter under present conditions, as that would supposedly leave the ‘root causes’ of the war unaddressed. Through such a position, the ceasefire talks were back to square one, as Putin circled around to his original demands viz. commitment that Ukraine will not join NATO and demilitarization of Ukraine. He also demanded that elections be held in Ukraine as Zelenskyy had supposedly lost legitimacy to govern. From the European and Ukrainian security perspective, these demands are unsustainable.
As a result of Russia’s recalcitrance, US has taken a backseat and the prospective minerals deal with Ukraine has fallen flat, while Europe is going ahead with its own security planning. Russia and Ukraine could only agree to a partial ceasefire in the Black Sea and in terms of both countries agreeing not to attack each other’s energy infrastructure. The partial ceasefire agreed to is also not to Ukraine’s advantage, as the Black Sea is already the quietest theatre in the ongoing war, and it is one region where Ukraine has had the upper-hand due to its drone warfare tactics. Since 2023, Ukraine has been able to break Russia’s blockade of Greater Odesa’s ports, opened a safe and stable corridor for Ukrainian and international shipping, decimated the Russian fleet, and confined the fleet’s remainder to the easternmost Black Sea. Given Ukraine’s upper-hand and the lack of intensive war in the Black Sea, the present ceasefire is not only a low-hanging fruit, but also limits Ukrainian drone warfare, allowing the still-powerful remainder of the Russian fleet to return to Sevastopol undisturbed. Furthermore, the ceasefire details do not mention any third-party, neutral enforcement of the ceasefire or even a monitoring of ceasefire violations, including through the UN or any other neutral country (like Turkey, which was previously involved in the Black Sea Grain Initiative). The ceasefire’s lacunae potentially allow Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to return to the Sevastopol base following a ceasefire, well positioned to interfere with commercial shipping from there.
As the situation stands at present, the deadlock seems difficult to resolve, and the ball is now in Europe’s court.
European defence consolidation:
The insecurities bred by the American and Russian attitudes have propelled Europe to forge ahead with evolving its alternate security arrangements. The ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – a group of 30 European countries, led by the UK and France – has already met to discuss the way ahead in Ukraine, and has committed to preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty, exploring security options like stationing a combat-ready peacekeeping force in Ukraine once the war gets over. Other options include Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s suggestion of granting Ukraine security reassurances similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, without officially bringing it into the Alliance. While a detailed plan has not been disclosed yet, Europe’s quick convergence on the issue of Ukraine’s defence may have likely taken even Russia by surprise, especially if it expected Europe to be fragmented and on the backfoot after America’s reversals on Ukraine.
What is even more interesting is how the European consolidation goes beyond the issue of Ukraine’s security and has triggered a process of defence consolidation not seen since the 20th century. There are several developments through which this has become visible:
First, Europe is rapidly re-thinking its nuclear calculus. France and UK are the only two European powers with nuclear capabilities. Other European nations – especially the Nordic states – have started warming up to the idea of possessing nuclear capabilities. Poland is already preparing for a war with Russia and wants to have its own nuclear weapons, while both Germany and Poland have stated that they must stop relying on the US’s nuclear umbrella.
While the UK’s nuclear deterrent – consisting of nuclear submarine-based 260 warheads powered by American-made missiles – is already committed to Europe through the platform of NATO, France is now looking for ways to extend its nuclear umbrella over Europe in the event of Russian aggression, and the absence of US’s nuclear deterrent. The recalcitrance of US will make the NATO’s nuclear deterrent ineffective, including that of UK and US. Therefore, the onus of nuclear deterrence falls largely on France, which has not committed its nuclear deterrent to the NATO and uses French-made rather than American-made missiles.
This new debate on the French extended nuclear umbrella is a revival of the decades-old French policy which states that France’s ‘vital interests’ – which determine the use of nuclear weapons – have a ‘European dimension.’ But this has never been clarified due to deliberate vagueness – such vagueness is a key element of nuclear deterrence, as it keeps the enemy guessing. This vagueness is also part of the larger rationale for why France, since the time of Charles de Gaulle, refused to commit French nuclear weapons to collective European defence via US and NATO, as France always believed that US’s nuclear guarantees could not be trusted. Even today, despite the danger posed by Russia, France continues to keep its nuclear policy deliberately vague.
The revival of this debate is already leading to comparisons of the strength of nuclear deterrence, and the stark facts that France’s arsenal of 300 nuclear warheads will be insufficient to protect all of Europe, compared to Russia’s arsenal of 5580 nuclear warheads. America has 5000 nuclear warheads, which alone is comparable to Russia. Further, France also lacks tactical nuclear weapons – less powerful, short-range nukes designed for battlefield use, which can be used for gradual escalation. Both Russia and US possess these. According to projections, Europe would need at least a decade of defence spending at about 6-7 percent of GDP (compared to under 2 percent spent now) if it wants to acquire even an additional 1000 nuclear warheads.
Second, these stark realities have already spurred action on the part of Europe. In its defence review, the European Commissioner acknowledged that decades of lag has led to structural weaknesses in Europe’s defence industrial base. This needs to be corrected. One positive manifestation of this was seen in the form of the movement towards a centralized defence market for the purpose of re-arming Europe. As part of this, the European Commission has decided to establish a ‘European Military Sales Mechanism’ – a strategic reserve of weapons that European countries could purchase from. This will consist of weapons made entirely in Europe. This has lifted up the spirit of European arms manufacturers, whose sales had not really picked up despite the Russia-Ukraine war, as it was the American arms manufacturers who had profited in terms of defence supplies. As part of this push towards a common defence procurement mechanism, the European Commission has also proposed the steps that individual countries could benefit from – such as, easing EU fiscal deficit rules in the domain of military spending, and redirecting more of EU budget towards military spending.
This is a very significant step, as it represents a consolidation of a common European defence market – something thought of as unviable up till now. For, till now, Europe already had US security guarantees, and also individual European countries wanted to have the last say in matters concerning national security. However, the new common defence purchase mechanism represents a transfer of competencies from individual countries to a Europe-wide level. It would trigger joint procurement of weapons by European countries. This would enable all European armies to scale up together in a compatible, standardized and coherent manner.
Germany was already quick to act on the new wave, as its government and the Parliament sanctioned the infusion of one trillion euro into the country’s military and infrastructural spending. This is a landmark move that would loosen up Germany’s policy of having strict borrowing limits. This ‘debt brake’ is enshrined in the Constitution since 2009 and is based on the mandate that the government’s structural deficit should not exceed 0.35 percent of the GDP.
Developments in Israel-Hamas War
The resumption of the Israel-Hamas war has led to the outbreak of full-fledged hostilities. The ceasefire with Hamas now lies in shambles, and even the Lebanon ceasefire with Hezbollah has been violated. Israel is demanding a release of all hostages in one go. Hamas holds 59 hostages, out of which 24 are believed to be still alive. Israel is also demanding that Hamas disarms, disbands and goes into exile. Hamas, on the other hand, has rejected these demands and is refusing to release the hostages without the release of a substantial number of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. Hamas has also been demanding a complete end to the war and a complete withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. These demands are thoroughly unpalatable to Israel and have been rejected.
Amidst this hopeless mire, one significant development that took place was the outpouring of hundreds of Palestinians on the streets of Gaza to protest against Hamas – a rare display. The ‘Hamas out’ protests mark a rare show of people’s dissent against the terrorist organization which continues to wield substantial influence in Gaza even after more than 17 months of war with Israel. The protestors campaigned for an end to the war and for the release of all hostages by Hamas so that the war’s end could be expedited.
The anti-Hamas protests signify the deep-rooted discontent running through Palestinians against Hamas. In the past too – like last year – Palestinians attempted to protest against Hamas. However, every time, including this time, Hamas violently and forcefully suppresses these forms of protest.
Technological Horizon
In recent times, there have been a series of breakthroughs in quantum science. Thanks to these advancements, the idea of quantum supercomputers is no longer the stuff of academic experiments but is close to becoming a reality. Already, the commercial deployment of quantum computers is being explored. This will have a game-changing impact on nearly every sector, and especially in the fields of climate change, health and food security. Unlike normal computers which represent data using ‘bits’ consisting of ones and zeroes, quantum computers use subatomic particles to create ‘qubits.’ Just like, according to quantum principle, an electron is neither completely in one position or another, but has a probability of being in each, similarly in quantum computers, a qubit is neither one nor zero but has a mathematical probability of being either.
Based on the principles of quantum mechanics, quantum computing reflects a big advance over traditional computing. Quantum computers would be able to perform in minutes operations that would take even the most powerful computers of today millions of years. Scientists believe that quantum computing represents such a radical revolution that it should not even be thought of as computing at all.
With the quantum computing race heating up, the world’s utility-scale quantum computer is expected to be ready for operations by 2027, with big American companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon announcing significant advances, while others like PsiQuantum are almost ready. Quantum computing applications would allow such a degree of precision in modeling the behaviour of complex molecules that its results in fields like human health and climate change could be extremely revolutionary. In terms of human health, it could yield extremely path-breaking discoveries, such as the development of targeted new drugs with unprecedented efficiency and minimal side-effects. In terms of climate change, it could result in technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by identifying the precise substance to be used for carbon removal, thereby making such prohibitively costly process more commercially widespread.
Its dangers could also be manifold. The greater the power of such new technologies, the more will be the risks if even the smallest thing goes wrong. Commercial application of quantum computing would mean that the modern systems of technology and communication that the world has been functioning on would likely be turned upside down, as Quantum computers would be able to penetrate even the most secure and encrypted networks, thereby posing new risks of cyber and other forms of warfare and political power.
Towards A Nuclear World
The heating up of the global nuclear arms race, with Europe as its epicenter, has brought the role of nuclear technologies to the forefront once again. This revival of nuclear technologies has two dimensions viz. geopolitical insecurity and climate change.
Geopolitical Insecurity:
The geopolitical insecurity bred by Trump’s ascendance is refueling a global nuclear arms race. This is visible across countries, especially US’s allies.
First, Europe is taking the lead in rearmament, with nuclear calculus now forming a core part of its strategic approach. This turning point for Europe is being compared to Charles de Gaulle’s famous distrust of US and his belief in the possibility of a future where US and Russia – the two biggest nuclear states – may even cooperate to divide the world amongst themselves. With that bleak future looking more probable now, Europe has started a drive of remilitarization. This is triggered by Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine, and US’s near-withdrawal as Europe’s security guarantor as well as leaving Ukraine at Moscow’s mercy. From debating the expansion of the French nuclear umbrella to creating a common defence procurement market and relaxing deficit rules, Europe is on a vigorous trajectory to prepare for a security future without US and NATO.
Second, another staunch US ally, South Korea, is itself planning to embark on developing nuclear capabilities. Its calculus is shaped by mistrust of US, the deepening of Russia-North Korea-China alliance and Trump’s relatively soft approach towards North Korea. Under these circumstances, policymakers in South Korea have begun advocating – with a strong consensus emerging, cutting across partisan lines – for “nuclear latency.” It is a capability which falls just short of full-fledged nuclear arsenal. Under threats, countries with nuclear latency can mobilize a full-fledged nuclear deployment at short notice. Policymakers and officials are appealing to the US to allow the country to acquire a critical stockpile of nuclear material which can give it a ‘nuclear threshold’ status. Even the country’s foreign minister, recently, stated that acquiring nuclear weapons is ‘not off the table.’ With the highest global density of civil nuclear reactors, South Korea already has the basic technology to make nuclear weapons and experience in processing small quantities of plutonium and uranium.
Third, the scale of insecurity can be gauged by the fact that even passive Japan – with its history of atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and civil nuclear disasters like Fukushima – is contemplating nuclear options. The country, despite constitutional limitations under Article 9 of Japan’s pacifist Constitution, was able to go around them, and build a powerful conventional military force.
Interestingly, Japan already has sufficient stockpile of nuclear material, due to the advancements made in the field of civil nuclear technology over many decades. Along with that, a key part of Japan’s capability is its massive and still vigorous industrial manufacturing base and its leadership in several specialized engineering and technological areas. All these make physical construction of nuclear weapons, at a short notice, very much possible for Japan. Therefore, unlike even South Korea, Japan already possesses nuclear latency. It is estimated that if the political green signal is given, Japan could make a nuclear weapon in just a matter of few months. In the beginning of 2024, Japan held 8.6 tons of plutonium, which is enough to build several thousand bombs. The only thing that has prevented Japan from doing so is the psychological assurance of US nuclear deterrent and Japan’s own constitutional limitations which bind the country to passivity.
Climate Change and the Energy Dilemma:
Nuclear power is also gaining ground as an alternative to combat climate change. The world is now increasingly coming to the realization that renewable energy alone cannot power the energy transition away from fossil fuels, as cost-effective options such as battery storage technologies remain limited. This is driven by the rising demand for power and energy, fueled by energy-consuming operations of Artificial Intelligence ecosystem as well as rising energy demands of the developing countries. This realization has fueled a technology-driven geopolitical race in the field of civilian nuclear power as well. With changes in nuclear technology, the new nuclear reactors – such as the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – based on relatively safer design and powered by light water technology, have emerged as a viable option for civilian nuclear energy. Countries are now vying to dominate this market.
The US, UK and South Korea have pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Companies such as Microsoft and Amazon are also increasing their investments in nuclear power, for the purpose of operating data centres to power AI technologies. China and India are competing to be early entrants in the SMR industry, while Russia vigorously attempts to dominate this market in the developing countries. Already Russia has more than ten nuclear plants under construction in various developing countries, such as Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Iran and Turkey. As it attempts to dominate the market, Russia is already involved in more than a third of new reactors being built worldwide. China is not far behind. And South Korea is accelerating its push to export nuclear reactors to Europe as it seeks to challenge China’s and Russia’s dominance of the market.
India is also taking new measures to revamp its nuclear industry. Towards that end, the country recently amended its archaic civil nuclear liability law – which was passed by the former United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2010 – which stated that, in the event of a nuclear accident, liability would lie with the original equipment supplier and not the operator of the plant. This had prevented many foreign companies from investing in India. As a result, despite the signing of the landmark 123 civil nuclear deal between India and the US in 2008, not a single step forward could be taken in developing India’s civil nuclear industry. Now with the threat of climate change looming large over us, India is exploring all kinds of non-fossil fuel options. For now, renewable energy, such as wind and solar, do constitute a significant part of India’s energy mix, but it won’t be sufficient to meet the country’s rising energy demand or alone power the green transition. This is mainly due to the lack of battery storage options, leading to pressures on the grid. Similarly, hydropower too has its limitations, as it can pose dangers in terms of changing the natural flow of river water and create ecological precarity in the event of disasters like floods.
Presently, renewables capacity (including large hydro) is at 212 GW, while coal-based thermal capacity is at 220 GW. India took policy decisions a decade ago to cut down thermal power and ramp up renewable capacity. More recently, in 2022, India’s National Electricity Plan (2017-22) banned fresh thermal capacity additions beyond 2022, apart from the 50 GW of already under-construction projects.
However, while thermal power can be ramped up and down when required, renewable energy can be used only when the sun shines or the wind blows, that is, during afternoon hours. In evening, when the household power demand is at peak, renewable electricity use will depend on effectiveness of battery storage capacity, which continues to be weak. This creates a supply gap, as renewables have not been integrated well into the grid and cannot support baseload power. To meet high demand for electricity, baseload capacity is mainly supported by ramping up thermal power. However, due to policy choices, India’s coal-based thermal capacity has grown just 7% from the 205 GW in 2019-20, while solar and wind power has grown from 72 GW in 2019-20 to 150 GW in 2024. Increasingly, thermal power cannot support the supply shortfall, thereby posing risk electricity supply gap, and rising risks of grid instability.
In terms of solutions, there are mainly two options available for renewables storage i.e. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and Pumped Storage Plants (PSP). These can store surplus solar power during the day and release it when the power demand rises in the evening. However, India’s installed energy storage capacity is very weak at present – 4.75 GW of PSP and 0.11 GW of BESS, as of 2024. As per estimates, in order to fully deploy its renewable capacity within the grid, India needs around 209 GW of BESS by 2030. Given this bleak scenario, India is now realizing that it should not have hastily phased out thermal power and should be exploring more sources of energy, besides working on BESS and PSP without which renewable power will not be of use in meeting the electricity demand.
It is in this context that nuclear power is becoming the preferred option for many countries, including India. The idea is to supplement existing renewable energy sources with nuclear power in the desperate fight against climate change. In recent times, after amending its civil nuclear liability law, India signed an agreement with American company, Holtec, to build and design nuclear reactors in India. The deal was cleared by the US Department of Energy. This is a significant breakthrough, as the agreement entails transfer of technology of SMRs to India. In the past, no American government trusted India enough to permit such transfer of technology, as nuclear power can have dual use i.e. both civilian and military. Under the present agreement, transfer of technology will take place to three Indian firms viz. regional subsidiary of Holtec i.e. Holtec Asia, Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, and Larsen and Toubro Ltd. This has come on the back of the Indian government’s assurance that this transfer of technology will be for ‘peaceful nuclear activities’ only.
