The Soviet Union was a nuclear super power but “lost” its sovereignty — not because of external aggression, but inter alia the economic and social costs of seeking nuclear parity with the US. Russia inherited the bulk of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal but whilst its economy stumbled it was hardly in a “secure” state. It acquired its current standing — it is a member of the G8 and it’s market is the cynosure of major international companies — only after it had on the back of its enormous oil and gas reserves, set its economic house in order. The US is undoubtedly the strongest military power in the world. But time and again weaker nations have cocked their sovereign nose at the US. It was humiliated in Vietnam; it is struggling to subdue the Taliban and its campaign in Iraq is a disaster. The international influence of the US does not flow from the portals of Pentagon. It flows from the depth of its civic institutions, the size and potential of its market, the excellence of its educational system and the superiority of its technology.

The messages are clear. The greatest threat to a country’s sovereignty comes not from without — the expansionist aspirations of an adversary — but from within — the fallout of economic mismanagement, social dislocation and political bankruptcy. Concepts like natural security through the compartmentalised prism of military preparedness, political agendas and economics are an artificial divide. The real world does not allow for such segmented analysis. In it everything is intertwined. A country’s military strength is only one (and perhaps an increasingly small) component of this interwoven fabric.

... contd.