The Indian Express Editorial Discussion is a crucial resource for UPSC CSE aspirants, providing in-depth analysis of current affairs, governance, economy, and international relations. It helps candidates develop a nuanced understanding of key issues with factual accuracy and multiple perspectives. Regular engagement with these discussions enhances analytical skills, aiding in answer writing for Mains and interview preparation.
1. Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: After Ukraine, imperialism is now the norm
The invasion of Ukraine was not a failure of Ukraine itself, as Donald Trump suggests, but a profound failure of the international community. Ukraine had willingly given up one of the largest nuclear arsenals in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees. The fact that the invasion happened at all proves that these guarantees were hollow.
A striking moment unfolded when a video of the confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump in the Oval Office went public. Trump accused Zelenskyy of risking World War III. The image that came to mind was of Kim Jong Un—whom Trump had traveled to meet in Singapore during his first term, hoping to negotiate a deal where North Korea would reduce its fissile material stockpile in exchange for sanction relief. That deal fell through, but at least North Korea was treated with respect. It had what Trump calls “leverage”—nuclear weapons.
The Fiasco Over Ukraine
The fiasco over Ukraine carries momentous significance. It is not about world leaders bowing to Trump or whether Zelenskyy miscalculated. The fundamental issue is that the U.S. came across as a classic bully—siding with the powerful while humiliating the vulnerable. Would Trump attempt the same tactics with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Mohammed bin Salman, or Kim Jong Un?
The significance is also not limited to whether the Western alliance is fracturing. While Trump may weaken NATO, the European peace plan for Ukraine is not radically different from his. The grotesque spectacle of blaming Ukraine for its own suffering distracts from a crucial truth: even if the U.S. had misled Ukraine about NATO expansion, Russia had no justification for its invasion. This was not just a war over territory or regime change—it was a war to erase a country. The fact that Putin failed does not diminish the scale of this transformation.
Ukraine’s tragedy is that it has been reduced to a pawn in competing U.S.-Russia hegemonic ambitions. With Russian and American imperial interests now temporarily aligned, one would expect anti-imperialists to acknowledge Ukraine’s plight. Instead, the debate remains centered on Trump and Putin.
The Dangerous Precedent of Ukraine
Trump is correct in saying that the Ukraine war will require a negotiated settlement. However, he presumptuously dictates what such a settlement should look like. There is truth to the argument that Ukraine will have to compromise, as the U.S. seeks either to force peace or withdraw. But Trump’s version of Ukraine’s history reveals a much deeper problem.
Ukraine’s decision to surrender its nuclear weapons was based on security guarantees from the international community, including both the West and Russia. At the time, holding onto its arsenal would have been economically and reputationally costly. However, the fact that Ukraine was invaded despite these guarantees is a stark warning to other nations: nuclear disarmament can lead to vulnerability.
This lesson is likely to trigger a wave of nuclear proliferation. The post-1945 world saw a sharp decline in wars aimed at full territorial conquest. In The Internationalists, Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro documented over 150 territorial wars in the century before 1945; after World War II, such wars nearly disappeared. Now, Ukraine’s fate signals the return of imperialism as a norm in international relations. Trump is not just undermining Ukraine—he is legitimizing conquest by force.
A New Nuclear World
The stability of the global order relied on key pillars:
(i) The deterrence between nuclear adversaries like the U.S. and Russia.
(ii) A limited number of nuclear-armed states.
(iii) Security guarantees from major powers to their allies.
(iv) A general norm against territorial conquest and nuclear weapons use.
Ukraine’s humiliation shatters these pillars. The message to small and midsized countries facing security threats is clear: giving up nuclear weapons is a mistake. In a world where nuclear technology is evolving, does a future with more nuclear-armed states make the world safer?
Some may take satisfaction in the exposure of the international order’s hypocrisy. But the real lesson from this debacle is not about Trump, Zelenskyy, or Russia—it is about how the world has just re-legitimized imperialism and nuclear proliferation. After Ukraine, outright territorial conquest is no longer unthinkable. The real joke is not on Trump. It is on the international community.
Disclaimer:
This analysis is based on the editorial content published in Indian Express and is intended solely for informational and educational purposes. The views, opinions, and interpretations expressed herein are those of the author of original article. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original article for complete context and to exercise their own judgment while interpreting the analysis. The analysis does not constitute professional advice or endorsement of any political, economic, or social perspective.
Follow Fusion IAS
