Prime Minister Modi spoke to Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, last week and reiterated his call for peace and dialogue. The Indian foreign ministry stated, “He (PM Modi) expressed his firm conviction that there can be no military solution to the conflict and conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts.” Zelensky responded by stating that there would be no talks with Vladimir Putin, though not ruling out dialogue with Russia under an alternate leadership.

This conversation came as nuclear facilities in Ukraine remain under threat, with battles waging in their proximity, Putin’s partial mobilization, the annexation of ‘four new regions of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) based on a ‘referendum’ and his threat of use of nuclear weapons in case the West does not stop backing Kyiv. The partial damage to the Crimean bridge has opened a new challenge for Russia. The nuclear threat was announced post-annexation, as these territories are now under Moscow. Defending them is a Russian responsibility and as per Putin, they are authorized to use all military means at their disposal for their defence. The Russian annexation has been globally condemned.

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated, “Any annexation of a State’s territory by another State resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the principles of the UN Charter.” It could set a precedent for stronger states forcibly occupying the territory of weaker states. The annexation announced by Russia includes territory still not under its control. India, alongside China, Brazil and Gabon abstained from voting in the UNSC resolution against the Russian referendum and annexation. By doing so, India indirectly backed the use of force for the occupation of territory along demarcated borders, irrespective of Russian justification. Russia, as was expected, vetoed the resolution.

India has reiterated its stance of resolution through dialogue and diplomacy, rather than war. Zelensky has signed a decree banning talks with Putin, which defines the future Ukrainian approach. It is an accepted fact that Washington and London scuttled the Istanbul agreement which could have resulted in peace, as the US saw this as an opportunity to engage Russia in a proxy war. In Russia, Putin continues to retain power, despite setbacks in the war zone. The Ukrainian scenario could worsen in case the US announces some form of nuclear backing to Ukraine or inducts it into Nato. In case Moscow loses further ground in Ukraine it may commence targeting civilian populations enhancing the scope of the conflict.

The world appreciated the Indian approach as long as the conflict raged but with the annexation and threat of nuclear war, the Indian stance is questionable. Internally too, the government is being grilled on whether it backs forcible annexation along demarcated borders. India must reconsider its stand, despite its relations with Russia. Employing a nuclear weapon or not is secondary but threatening a non-nuclear state is against global norms.

A nuclear strike would damage Putin and Russia more, rather than proving advantageous, and if employed in the current battle zone could impact populations which voted for a merger with Russia or even Russian troops on the ground. With Europe not seeking an enlarged conflict and especially not a nuclear one, any Russian strike is unlikely to be responded to as Europe fears a nuclear holocaust. The West would only enhance sanctions or further back Ukraine. Indian silence on the nuclear threat is mysterious as its foreign ministry claims, “India continues to attach high priority to and remains committed to universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable nuclear disarmament.” Historically nuclear weapons have been employed as a deterrent against an adversary.

Pakistan has effectively employed nuclear blackmail on numerous occasions against India including Kargil, offensive actions post the Parliament attack (Operation Parakram) and Mumbai blasts. Pakistan is possibly the only nuclear-powered nation which does not possess a ‘no first use policy. With Putin making this announcement, Russia is also dumping its ‘no-first-use policy. This is a wrong precedent, especially since it involves a nation which surrendered its nuclear weapons on global guarantees post the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Many believe the Russians are bluffing. However, in case utilized, all nations will seek to acquire nuclear weapons as security. Thus, irrespective of Russian intent, this threat must be condemned by Delhi, as it could result in nuclear proliferation. The other aspect which necessitates an Indian review is Moscow’s annexation of Ukrainian territories. This is a precedent which must never be permitted. Taiwan, islands in the South China Sea, claimed parts of Bhutan and Nepal or even Indian territory currently under its control, including Aksai Chin or Ladakh, could be annexed by China on a similar pretext.

China could also threaten the use of nuclear weapons against nations coming to the aid of Taiwan in case it decides to undertake a military approach. After all, countries seek precedents and Russia is providing them. The US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, rightly stated that the referendum was ‘held behind the barrel of Russian guns,’ and added, “All of us understand the implications for our own borders, our own economies and our own countries if these principles are tossed aside.”

The Chinese sham elections in December last year in Hong Kong, under the barrel of a gun, to push through a pro-Beijing government is almost similar to the sham referendum. Russian annexation must face global criticism before it is considered a norm. China is currently hesitant due to US support for Taiwan as also nations with whom it is in a dispute over South China Sea islands. It fears it may fail and also invite global wrath. Thus, it has projected peaceful reunification with Taiwan, which appears unlikely.

At some stage, it may attempt a Russia-type invasion. India has thus far managed to keep the Chinese at bay. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine including annexation and nuclear threats suit China. It would be observing the global reaction; hence it abstained from the UNSC, as it may, in future, contemplate a similar course. For India, legalising annexation by abstaining on the premise of a belief in dialogue is a wrong decision. While Delhi may advocate talks, it must condemn both the annexation and nuclear threats.