Would a brief public spat between the heads of state of two democracies change the world order?
It would be premature to immediately reach such a conclusion. However, it is crucial not to view the Trump-Zelenskyy Oval Office showdown in isolation or dismiss it as just a minor heated exchange. What we witnessed was a burst of tension after a prolonged period of mounting pressure. President Trump appears to be primarily focused on the economic fallout of the Ukraine-Russia war on the United States. He seems uninterested in offering generous support to Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, either financially or with military resources. Trump’s primary goal is that Ukraine negotiate a deal with Russia and end the fighting, at a minimum opting for a quick ceasefire. Simultaneously, he is eager to secure an arrangement with Ukraine for access to its mineral resources, so that the US can be compensated for the assistance provided to them to fight this war.
For the past three years, the Biden administration in the US was aligned with the European perspective that allowing President Putin to have a say regarding Ukraine is non-negotiable. Trump has changed that. The European Union (EU) and NATO, of which the US is a key member, have been staunch supporters of Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, now people like Elon Musk, who plays a significant role in shaping Trump’s political agenda have expressed the opinion that the US should withdraw from NATO. It is likely that the Trump administration may be moving towards a policy realignment, signalling that it no longer views Russia as a pariah state.
From war economy to tariffs, the entire focus of the Trump administration seems to be concentrated on economics. He is attempting to ensure that the US gets high returns for every investment made. However, this approach appears to be based on immature economic calculations, as it overlooks the strategic costs the US may incur.
It is not accurate to assess national security solely through an economic lens. Ensuring the security of the nation and minimising both inter-state and intra-state threats require wide-ranging measures that go beyond economic considerations. Developing and maintaining a robust national security set-up involves investments that are difficult to quantify or assign monetary values to. These investments often provide intangible benefits, such as deterrence and stability, which cannot be easily measured in financial terms.
In Trump 2.0, there are indications that states which were provided with a US security umbrella all these years would be forced to rethink their security policies. Trump’s evolving engagement with Russia is a major concern for Europe. Already many European states have started increasing their defence budgets and France has spoken openly about shielding Europe under its nuclear umbrella. Apart from Europe, in Asia, states like Japan and South Korea are strategically dependent on the US. It is possible that Trump may not have the same animosity with China in future. This possible G2 arrangement could be a cause of concern for many in the region.
After the end of the World War II, the global power dynamics underwent a significant shift. The United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent future conflicts. In 1949, NATO was formed as a transnational military alliance under US leadership.
Though the victorious powers from Western Europe during the war, such as the UK and France, became permanent members of the UN Security Council, Western Europe became less influential on the global stage, while the US and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers. After the Cold War, Europe increasingly focused on political and economic reforms, while security concerns were largely outsourced to NATO, and by extension, to the US. This shift marked a reorientation of Europe’s priorities and they concentrated more towards making themselves a lifestyle superpower.
Today, as global diplomacy appears to be heading in an uncertain direction, many European leaders are recognising the need to increase their defence expenditure. However, a critical question arises: can the economies and industries of this region, which have largely been structured around social welfare and boosting consumerism, suddenly be transformed to focus on military security? Additionally, building a military structure capable of providing deterrence, when many European states’ militaries are largely ceremonial, poses a significant challenge. It may not be possible for some of these states to establish a conventional military deterrence mechanism in near future.
These states understand the strategic edge that countries like the UK and France have in nuclear deterrence. Against this backdrop, there is a possibility that some European states could begin developing their own nuclear deterrence capabilities to strengthen their security in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.
Kenneth Waltz and the study of unlikelihood
A few years ago, Kenneth Waltz contextualised the role of nuclear weapons in modern-day security architecture. Waltz, famous for his theory of neorealism (or structural realism), argued that nuclear proliferation could contribute to peace. His argument was based on various realities the world was witnessing like the India-Pakistan scenario. He hypothesised that even conventional war between these two nuclear weapon states is unlikely because of the deterrence provided by nuclear weapons. According to Waltz, since no regime can survive a nuclear war, states would refrain from getting into any conflict with a nuclear weapon state and that a conflict amongst two nuclear weapon states in unlikely since the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) actually creates a more secure environment.
Waltz also argued that leaders like Saddam Hussein were not as irrational as they were often portrayed. Despite his combative relationship with Israel, Hussein refrained from using any heavy lethal weapons against Israel during the Gulf War. Similarly, while North Korea continues to pose a threat, it has not taken any offensive action so far. Waltz believed that nuclear terrorism, often presented as a significant risk, is unlikely to occur because it would damage the image of the terrorist group, potentially alienating its supporters or others sympathetic to its cause.
Now would Kenneth Waltz’s hypothesis become a reality in the present context?
The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a mechanism signed by 191 states and they have pledged their cooperation in stemming the spread of nuclear technology. Amongst these, there are five official nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and UK). As per the NPT only these five states are permitted to hold nuclear weapons. States like India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to NPT. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT during 2003.
The US has long been a trailblazer in international non-proliferation policy to stop the spread of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). It had played an important role towards evolving the NPT regime. For years the US has been playing an important role towards evolving various structures dealing with arms control and disarmament issues. It has played a role towards establishing the Biological and Chemical Weapon Conventions (BWC and CWC). Also, it has been pushing for various non-treaty mechanisms like Cooperative Threat Reduction Programmes, Proliferation Security Initiative and UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1540. It participates in various multilateral export control regimes to prevent the proliferation of WMDs.
The current approach of the Trump administration suggests that European and some Asian states may have to secure their strategic interests independently. So, there is a growing possibility that some of these countries could start considering nuclear options. They may view nuclear deterrence as a viable means of ensuring their security. Japan, a victim of nuclear attack, has refrained from pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. But they may reassess their nuclear policies. They have neighbours’ like China and North Korea which are nuclear weapon states. Similarly, South Korea could also contemplate developing nuclear weapons.
Germany, one of Europe’s most influential powers, does not possess nuclear weapons, and it may no longer be willing to accept this constraint in light of the possibility of the US abandoning NATO. There are some conjectures about how close some of these states are to developing nuclear weapons. Presently, if any signatory of the NPT wishes to pursue a nuclear weapons programme, then it would first need to withdraw from the NPT. There is a growing possibility that some states might choose to withdraw from the NPT as a means of exerting pressure on President Trump – sending a clear signal about their security concerns.
During the 1992 US election campaign, Bill Clinton famously coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” However, Trump must understand that this was primarily in reference to the recession at the time. While all his predecessors have given precedence to the economy, they have not done that at the expense of global security. Simply focusing on the economic dimension will not make America great again. Today, there is a growing danger that years of effort made by the US and other states under the UN umbrella towards evolving and executing non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament mechanisms will get undermined. If this happens, Kenneth Waltz may have the last laugh.
Ajey Lele researches space issues and is the author of the book Institutions That Shaped Modern India: ISRO.
