 Hello and welcome to news click and to the second part of our show where we look at how 2020 has been as far as international issues are concerned as far as global geopolitics is concerned. In the first episode that was yesterday we took a look at the economic developments of the tech war so to speak as well as the emerging the decline of the US and the Sino-Russian Alliance. And in today's episode we're going to be taking a look at the military aspects, the strategic aspects as well as issues that could actually put humanity at the whole at risk. We have with us Praveen Prakash, thank you Praveen for joining us. So I want to start out with a larger look at the state of disarmament itself, and the past few years have not really been good on this count we've seen the US of course withdrawing from deals the INF Treaty of course the new start is still in a bit of a So to speak the US attitude towards it has been very negative. Now, some of this might change once the Biden administration takes over but the general consensus has been that we are very close to the possibility of an apocalyptic war. So how do you see the situation right now. I don't know whether we are closer to an apocalyptic war that can end humanity. But it is also true according according to the bulletin of atomic scientists and the doomsday clock, what they put out that we have the closest we ever been to a nuclear exchange and extinction of human civilization. It's not based on the fact that countries are doing saber rattling or at each other's throat, but the fact that all the arms treaties have collapsed, and we are looking at the last arms treaty left, which is what is called the new start, and that itself, Trump didn't look like there's any possibility of it's being renewed under the Biden administration we don't know, you might see a one year extension of the treaty, hoping that in this one year they could work out something. So we don't know about that. It's also possible that US will continue what Trump administration had argued that we need to bring China in when China's, as you know, it's number of nuclear weapons is less than that of France, for example. So the logic of bringing China in is not clear. Now the United States is also not only vis-a-vis the new start when it withdrew from the intermediate nuclear missile treaty that at that point of time it had said that they are doing it also because of China. Now China has according to it intermediate range missiles. Again, they have never substantiated this and if you really look at what they have said, while all this has been returning, what they have said is that we need to have the ability to control China's coastline as well. And the fact that China has its ability to control its near borders, that itself is a threat to the US ability to dominate over all theaters of war, which is basically its military or strategic doctrine. So this the thrust re-China has not been so much as China has got certain abilities which threatens the United States. But what it is saying is its ability to control its near sea borders or oceans or seas, all of that put together is itself something that would not like because it means losing in that belt the parity, reaching parity with China which they don't want. Now, you know, it's very strange because after all, there is a huge specific ocean in between to the fact that China is not allowed to control even its coastal seas is a bit of a problem. And this is where it's South China Sea issue comes up that it's trying to align with Chinese neighbors. And at one point of time they were willing to play the US game, but it doesn't seem that they are willing to play that game anymore. And if you look at trade relations is also interesting even Japan, who has tensions with China and a lot of these issues, including South China Sea, is not willing to break off trade relations with China. On the contrary, they have actually signed also become a part of the RCEP trade agreement. So I think there are lots of issues there which we need to think about. But the issue that is the dominant one in the question that you've asked, are we going to see a return to a nuclear understanding, and also stepping up the disarmament policies that have been initiated. Agarwal Regan, who's not exactly a peaceable peacenik, you can talk that about say maybe Carter, maybe, but who himself on Middle East was quite a hawk, but certainly Regan who started the Star Wars initiative was no peacenik, but he admitted that nuclear war was not winnable. And that's how the start, the salt agreement took place, and then the start and then the new start. So the question is, that are we going to see a return to ratcheting down the number of nuclear weapons that countries have. Obviously, United States and Russia have much much more than any other country, and they nearly have, I think more than 90% of the world's stock of nuclear weapons at this point. So that is the crucial issue. And whether we will see ratcheting down those number of warheads or not, that still remains something that we see no movement on that count. What we are seeing is, can it this current freeze we maintain, that's what we are talking about new start. On the other side, we also have hypersonic missiles being developed, because Russia feels that the kind of batteries, the kind of batteries that has been put on its borders is a threat to its internal into its security, because it can wipe out Russia's offensive capabilities, and also a second strike possibility can be then recluded by virtue of what I call anti-missile shields that are being put on its borders. So it has reacted by saying, okay, if you are trying to see that you get nuclear dominance over me, then I have to respond by developing certain other kinds of missiles and the hypersonic missiles are in that category. There have been a set of series of missiles that Putin talked about, but the hypersonic missiles are quite real. And now we have a hypersonic missile race, the Russians, Americans and also the Chinese joining force. And even the Indians have said they're also the path of developing hypersonic missiles. So all of this makes this danger of nuclear war and a nuclear exchange incrementally more likely. Once you don't see a strong peace movement, which is what we saw in the 80s, 90s. There was a strong peace movement which protested against the intermediate-range missiles, the neutron bomb being put in Europe, and the Europe becoming the war ground in exchanges between Russia and the United States. That is no longer there. And the biggest problem today is not just the fact that both sides are inching towards, again, a nuclear arms race. Of course, primarily led by the United States in this case, walking out of various nuclear-restraint regime treaties, but also the fact that we lack a peace movement in the world today. And therefore, the voice that should really count in the people against such weapons and weaponization of even space, that is the element that is missing. And that's what makes the situation much more dangerous because you have a few war warriors, nuclear warriors, space warriors, sitting in various places dictating the policies without any resistance or any public debate. Because when it comes to strategic or war issues, then generally unless there is a peace movement, people don't want to raise their hands. And I think that's the bigger danger we have. And that's why the nuclear race or renewal of nuclear race is going to be dangerous. Biden may not immediately abandon new start. That is true. But will Biden say we will not rebuild our nuclear weapons that we had? In fact, Obama started this modernizing the nuclear weapons. Trump has talked about it. Budget has been put to it. So what are we really going to see? Still remains a question. And I don't think Biden is by any means a revolutionary on this count. But hey, if Ronald Reagan could go down the piece of path, maybe Biden will. We don't know. We'd like to be surprised. And this context, of course, there's the move in the other direction where again, over the year, we have seen repeated instances of very basic or small equipment being able to make a considerable difference in military fortunes. And one example, of course, was the fact that the Azeris in the war with the conflict with Armenia were able to use drones successfully. Even in the previous year, we saw how the Houthis were able to sort of, say, use this technology to actually take on the much more powerful Saudi regime as well. So in that sense, there's also a small sense of a military stalemate appearing in key regions, for instance, especially in West Asia, where despite not being numerically stronger or stronger in terms of equipment, nonetheless, forces, say countries like Iran, for instance, or the Houthis have that element of being able to mount resistance. You know, the Azeri-Armenian war should be put on a separate plane because this was a surprise to the Armenians that their forces could be taken out by the drone strikes that the Azeris have done. Now, of course, that means that it is possible to introduce a new element of warfare, which is the drones to what would be conventional forces. So that's one part of it. And that's something which I think every army will now take into account that how do we protect ourselves against such assaults? How do you protect our tanks? How do you protect our arms, guns, and so on. So there is, I think, an element of newness that has been introduced and we can relate it to the ban that the United States has now imposed on the Chinese drones, for example, which may appear to be do-it-yourself drones, but the technology of that is not very different from what you see in terms of the drone strikes that were done on Aramco, for example, by the Houthis. So this is something that we need to now take into account that drones are going to change the nature of warfare on the Azeri-Armenian issue. I'll just take a pass on that for today. But looking at what it means, for instance, the Saudi Arabians, what it means for the US forces in West Asia, it means that much smaller players have an ability to hit and cause damage to much stronger powers. So it's not that the Saudi Arabians are not much stronger than the Houthis. They indeed are. But the point is the ability of the Houthis to use almost the do-it-yourself drones to configure them in a way that they could actually cause a considerable amount of damage to Aramco. I think that is something to think about, that it means that you have to resolve differences, not militarily, but through negotiations and through an understanding. Secondly, instead of buying just arms or inviting the United States and NATO powers into your region, you have to do this regionally. And even that's true for Albania and Azerbaijan. It's really regional powers which have to come together and resolve these issues. Instead of calling the overlord of the word, which is essentially the United States, to come and solve all the problems solved within courts. No, it is not an even-handed or an uninterested judge. It's really coming out in favor of Israel, favor of Saudi Arabia, in the most regressive regimes in the region and so on. So I think this, what you call the drone warfare, has produced something of a stalemate in terms of much stronger powers being able to dictate terms to weaker powers. And I think the classic example of that is Israel versus Hezbollah. Hezbollah has enough firepower now to make Israel cautious about whether it can invade Lebanon again or not. The last invasion didn't go well for Israel because Hezbollah was able to stop them two, two and a half kilometers from the borders, which none of the Arab countries had succeeded earlier. One, but now they also have enough firepower to have strikes within Israel. And of course, drones or intelligent missiles are a part of that ability. I think this has led to a kind of strategic parity between uneven military powers and essentially, therefore, offensive capabilities are not simply the amount of money that you have and how much arms you buy abroad. I think that's the immediate consequence. Will this state last? We don't know. What we do see is much more regional talks about peace, and I will say even if the initiative of the monarchies with Israel had put in that account, now okay, let's regionally see we can solve the issues, though of course it is under the tutelage of the United States. But nevertheless, there is this issue that we need to solve the regional issues with regional powers. Will it see its extension into Turkey, Greece, the issue about the pipeline through the Mediterranean? Will that be under such regional auspices? Or will it be NATO trying to intervene and dictate to Turkey? Turkey is a NATO member. Will it also mean that Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey will sit together and solve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh? I think those are the kind of issues that we are seeing. I do believe that we are in a path of more regional play taking place and not everything being subsumed under international tensions. This is not the United States liking. They would like to be involved in every place as the power which decides for each of these countries what the right course should be. And the right course should be those who are allies of the United States are always right, as you know. So I think that is not going to work at least in the medium term as it appears, given the kind of changes that have taken place, as you rightly said, based on the ability of using drones. Let's not forget, you can also have underwater drones. So shipping could also be affected. So we have all kinds of possibility and that's perhaps the reason why the Chinese toy manufacturers do it yourself drones have come under sanctions. And finally, Praveer, so we talked of course about the land and seas, but now definitely space becoming the new frontier as far as weaponization is concerned, even maybe as far as arms race is concerned in the US. Once again, of course, definitely taking the lead there, they even announced the logo of the space force and given a name, they're going to be called guardians, the officials of the space force at least. But how do we see this arms race in space, at least developing over the next couple of years and is there a possibility of reining it in a by any chance. You know, we had an agreement about not weaponizing space. So US talking about space command by itself may not violate that agreement. But what happens is what the space command is showing, putting laser guns in the in the space firing at things on the ground, destroying arms on the ground and so on. These, of course, means also not only weaponizing space, but also probably mounting nuclear devices in space to power this kind of weapons. So you are talking about both extending nuclear weapons to space or at least nuclear fissile devices to space, and also offensive weapons in space. You see, it's not that the space is not militarized, because after all your military satellites in space so it is in that sense militarized. But that is different from putting weapons in space, which is where the main objection was, and that was something which all countries agree should not be done. So that is really the violation of the space agreement that we see. And now the United States has also said that commercially it can mine any part of the any part of space. Now, whether it's economically useful today or 200 years later we're not getting into that. But under again an agreement which all countries seem to have done earlier. It is that we will not have commercial exploitation of space by any country. But the United States system has said no, it is universal humankind's herit resources that we agree. But commercially anybody who goes there can do it, and there's no barb to that. So again it boils down to how do you interpret the language of the treaties how do you interpret any of these things. But the fundamental issue is, do you really want to start arms race in space. Do you really want to start a commercial race for the space, the way for instance, the marine empires came out, assuming that the land belong to anybody who reached there and planted their flag. I think it used to be called for God and country. The church also gave its imprimatur to the colonizing face of Western European countries. So is that something we want to repeat in the 21st century is the question. And I think, unfortunately, the US, as always, has taken a position that it is for, I don't know about God, it is for definitely for their country that they are going to go anywhere in the world. And I think that also is one of the unfortunate results of the last this day, this, I will not say this year, it's really the last two decades, but since you're discussing 2020, the end of 2020. I think we should really talk about this 20 years, what are we seeing. And I think that, unfortunately, the shift here to is very dangerous. Thank you for talking to us. That's all the time for you to keep watching your screen.