For this article:

7 Mar 2026·Source: The Indian Express
6 min
RS
Ritu Singh|International
International RelationsPolity & GovernancePolity & GovernanceEDITORIAL

Modern Warfare: Spectacle, Moral Evasion, and Global Power Dynamics

The article critiques how modern warfare is presented as a spectacle, allowing moral evasion and shifting global power dynamics.

UPSC●SSC

Quick Revision

1.

Modern warfare is increasingly waged as a spectacle.

2.

Nations have devised new strategies for moral evasion in conflict.

3.

Global powers like the US, China, and Russia use economic and military might to influence international discourse.

4.

Traditional moral frameworks in conflict resolution are eroding.

5.

Human rights and international law are selectively applied by powerful nations.

6.

The media plays a role in shaping narratives and public perception of conflicts.

7.

The 'war on terror' paradigm set a precedent for justifying interventions.

Visual Insights

West Asia Conflict & Global Spillover (March 2026)

This map illustrates the interconnectedness of the ongoing 'Israel-US-Iran War' in West Asia and its expanding geopolitical impact, extending to global security theaters like the Indo-Pacific and the Taiwan Strait. It highlights key areas of conflict and strategic concern.

Loading interactive map...

📍Iran📍United States📍Cyprus📍Taiwan Strait

Modern Warfare: Spectacle, Moral Evasion & Global Dynamics (March 2026)

This mind map illustrates the core arguments of the editorial, showing how modern warfare has transformed into a spectacle, enabling moral evasion by global powers, and its impact on international law and public perception. It connects these themes to current geopolitical flashpoints.

Modern Warfare (Spectacle & Moral Evasion)

  • ●War as Spectacle
  • ●Moral Evasion
  • ●Global Power Dynamics
  • ●Role of Technology & Propaganda

Mains & Interview Focus

Don't miss it!

The contemporary landscape of global conflict is undeniably shaped by a calculated shift towards spectacle warfare and moral evasion. This editorial astutely captures how major powers, particularly the US, China, and Russia, have perfected the art of framing conflicts to suit their geopolitical agendas, often at the expense of universal ethical norms. The traditional Westphalian system, which emphasized state sovereignty and non-interference, is increasingly challenged by interventions justified through selective interpretations of international law.

This strategic narrative control is not merely about public relations; it represents a fundamental weakening of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) framework. When concepts like human rights and proportionality are invoked only when convenient, the entire edifice of global governance built post-World War II begins to crumble. Consider the varied international responses to conflicts in Ukraine versus those in Yemen or Palestine; this stark contrast underscores the selective application of moral outrage.

Furthermore, the economic dimension of this evasion is profound. Sanctions, ostensibly a tool for peace, often become instruments of coercive diplomacy, impacting civilian populations disproportionately. The lack of a robust, impartial enforcement mechanism for international law allows powerful states to operate with relative impunity, creating a dangerous precedent for smaller nations. This undermines the very principles of multilateralism that India, for instance, has consistently championed.

India's foreign policy, rooted in strategic autonomy, must navigate this complex terrain by consistently advocating for a rules-based international order. This involves strengthening institutions like the United Nations and pushing for reforms that ensure equitable representation and accountability. Merely condemning actions is insufficient; a proactive diplomatic strategy is required to build consensus around universal ethical standards and resist the normalization of moral relativism in international affairs.

Editorial Analysis

The author argues that contemporary warfare has transformed into a spectacle, enabling powerful nations to evade moral responsibility. This evasion is achieved through strategic narratives, media control, and the selective application of international law and human rights, leading to a decline in traditional moral frameworks for conflict resolution.

Main Arguments:

  1. Modern warfare is presented as a spectacle, designed to control public perception and distance audiences from the true horrors of conflict, thereby allowing for moral evasion by those waging war.
  2. Global powers, particularly the US, China, and Russia, leverage their economic and military might to influence international discourse, justify their actions, and shape narratives around conflicts.
  3. There is a significant erosion of traditional moral frameworks in conflict resolution, where concepts like human rights and international law are applied selectively or ignored based on geopolitical interests.
  4. The media plays a crucial role in perpetuating this spectacle, often becoming an instrument for state propaganda rather than an independent source of information, further enabling moral evasion.
  5. The 'war on terror' paradigm, initiated by the US, has set a precedent for justifying interventions and bypassing international norms under the guise of national security.
  6. The economic dimensions of conflict, including sanctions and aid, are used as tools of coercion and control, further complicating the moral landscape of warfare.

Counter Arguments:

  1. The editorial implicitly challenges the notion that wars are always fought for just causes or humanitarian interventions, suggesting these are often pretexts for moral evasion and power projection.

Conclusion

The current state of global affairs, characterized by moral evasion and strategic spectacle in warfare, demands a re-evaluation of international norms and a stronger commitment to genuine peace and justice, rather than allowing powerful nations to dictate terms.

Policy Implications

The author implicitly calls for greater accountability for nations engaged in conflict, strengthening international law and institutions to prevent selective application, promoting independent media and critical public discourse, and a global shift towards genuine conflict resolution based on universal moral principles.

Exam Angles

1.

GS Paper 2: International Relations - Impact of global conflicts on India's foreign policy and strategic autonomy.

2.

GS Paper 2: International Relations - Role of India in global peace and security, and its stance on major power conflicts.

3.

GS Paper 3: Internal Security - Implications of cyber warfare and advanced military technologies on national security.

4.

GS Paper 3: Science & Technology - Development and ethical considerations of AI in warfare.

View Detailed Summary

Summary

Modern wars are often presented like a show, where powerful countries control what people see and hear to avoid taking full responsibility for their actions. They use their strength to justify conflicts and ignore international rules, making it hard to tell right from wrong in global affairs.

Raisina Dialogue 2026 experts, including Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director of ORF America, warned on March 6 that the ongoing conflict in West Asia is no longer a regional affair but is "bleeding together" with global security theatres, including the Indo-Pacific. Jaishankar noted the conflict's widening scope, citing drone strikes against British military facilities in Cyprus, indicating the expanding range of Iran's missile and drone capabilities and the awareness of both the US and Iran that their war will not be contained to a narrow area.

This interconnectedness underscores a broader global moral void, as articulated by P B Mehta in an opinion piece on March 7, following US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's remarks about causing “death and destruction from the sky all day long” in Iran. Mehta describes the Israel-US-Iran war as an "aimless war waged as spectacle," designed to perpetuate its own fury rather than achieve rational aims like conquest or liberation. Its true purpose, he argues, is to test the next generation of military technology, including missiles, AI, targeting systems, and cyber warfare, serving as a performance of power.

Mehta highlights the "overweening nihilism of American and Israeli military power" meeting Iran's "nihilism of desperation." Iran, having become vulnerable to US attention, cultivated proxies and pursued a nuclear program, but after Hamas's attack on Israel, it proved to be a power with "all bark and little bite," a "simulacrum of defence." Iran, therefore, became a convenient pretext for wars of power. In a final act of desperation, Iran has tried to raise the costs of war by drawing the rest of the world into the conflict.

The global response has been marked by moral evasion. Leaders like Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Friedrich Merz have shown confusion. Gulf monarchies, including Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed in the UAE, are ideologically hollow after years of proxy wars. India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has become a supplicant to American demands, with its tongue-tied silence reflecting a vacuous reorientation of foreign policy, not a strategy to protect the Indian diaspora. China appears paralysed, possibly content to watch the US inflict wounds upon itself, but also limited in its ability to lead an international coalition for peace.

Despite the shift of American military resources to West Asia, Bonnie Glick of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies affirmed that the United States remains capable of addressing multiple crises simultaneously. While China might consider the situation an opportunity regarding Taiwan, Washington's messaging remains firm on its ability to respond. Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for Chinese Studies suggested Beijing uses foreign conflicts for rhetorical ammunition but not necessarily to legitimise military action against Taiwan. I-Chung Lai, Senior Advisor to the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, stated that current conflicts do not shift the fundamental military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but expressed concern over the longer-term military supply of weaponry and ammunition due to global demand. The core challenge is to refuse the premise that the will to violence must dictate politics, and for states to reject legitimising aimless wars waged as spectacle.

This transformation of warfare and global power dynamics is highly relevant for UPSC Civil Services Examination, particularly for GS Paper 2 (International Relations) and GS Paper 3 (Internal Security and Science & Technology, specifically defence technology).

Background

Historically, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been complex, marked by periods of cooperation and intense hostility. Iran became particularly vulnerable to American attention, leading it to cultivate proxies, pursue a nuclear program, and present itself as an ideological vanguard. This dynamic often fueled a cycle of defensiveness and insecurity, which, as observed, sometimes translated into a form of nihilism in its survival strategy. The broader geopolitical landscape of West Asia has consistently been a flashpoint for global powers, with regional conflicts often drawing in external actors due to strategic interests in energy resources and maritime trade routes. The concept of deterrence in international relations, particularly in regions like the Taiwan Strait, relies on the credible threat of retaliation to prevent an adversary from taking aggressive action. However, the nature of modern warfare, as described in the article, challenges traditional deterrence models when conflicts become aimless spectacles rather than instruments for rational purposes. The shifting focus of military resources and the interconnectedness of global security theatres further complicate these strategic calculations, as seen with the US reallocating assets from East Asia to West Asia.

Latest Developments

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the integration of advanced technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), sophisticated missile systems, and cyber warfare capabilities into military strategies globally. This technological arms race is transforming the nature of conflict, making wars more about performance and testing new capabilities, as highlighted by the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's remarks. The Raisina Dialogue 2026 underscored the growing realization among foreign policy experts that regional conflicts, such as those in West Asia, are no longer isolated but have significant spillover effects, impacting global security theatres like the Indo-Pacific. Simultaneously, major powers are grappling with the challenge of maintaining deterrence across multiple fronts. The US, for instance, faces the strategic dilemma of allocating resources between regions like West Asia and East Asia while assuring allies like Taiwan of its continued support. China, on its part, is observed to be leveraging these global distractions for rhetorical purposes, aiming to project itself as a responsible global power, even as it continues its military modernization. The long-term implications for global military supply chains and the ability of nations like Taiwan to secure necessary weaponry remain a critical concern amidst these interconnected conflicts.

Sources & Further Reading

1.
2.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. The Raisina Dialogue 2026 highlighted the interconnectedness of global security. What is the primary significance of the Raisina Dialogue itself for UPSC Prelims, and what kind of trap might examiners set?

The Raisina Dialogue is India's flagship conference on geopolitics and geo-economics, organized by the Ministry of External Affairs in collaboration with the Observer Research Foundation (ORF). It serves as a platform for global leaders, policymakers, and experts to discuss critical international issues.

Exam Tip

Remember that the Raisina Dialogue is India's initiative and focuses on geopolitics and geo-economics. A common trap could be linking it to only one specific region (e.g., Indo-Pacific) or misattributing its organization to a different body (e.g., NITI Aayog). Also, note the year mentioned in the news (2026) is likely a typo in the source material, as Raisina Dialogue happens annually. For exam purposes, focus on its nature and organizers.

2. Why is modern warfare increasingly being described as a "spectacle" and how does this enable "moral evasion" by nations?

Modern warfare is termed a "spectacle" due to the integration of advanced technologies like AI, sophisticated missile systems, and cyber warfare, which make conflicts appear more like a performance or a test of capabilities. This presentation allows for moral evasion by:

  • •Distancing decision-makers from the direct human cost.
  • •Focusing public attention on technological prowess rather than humanitarian consequences.
  • •Creating a narrative where conflict is about strategic gains or testing new weapons, rather than human suffering.
  • •Allowing powerful nations to selectively apply human rights and international law without immediate moral accountability.

Exam Tip

When analyzing "moral evasion," think about how technology creates distance and how media portrayal shapes public perception, allowing states to justify actions that might otherwise face stronger moral condemnation.

3. How does the ongoing conflict in West Asia "bleeding together" with global security theatres, including the Indo-Pacific, represent a new and significant trend in international relations?

This interconnectedness signifies a departure from traditionally compartmentalized regional conflicts. It shows that:

  • •Global Reach of Actors: Non-state or regional actors now possess capabilities (like Iran's drones/missiles) to project power far beyond their immediate borders, impacting global security.
  • •Intertwined Interests: Major global powers have intertwined economic and strategic interests across multiple regions, meaning instability in one area quickly reverberates elsewhere.
  • •Technological Advancement: Advanced technologies facilitate this spread, making it harder to contain conflicts geographically or functionally (e.g., cyber attacks, long-range drones).
  • •Erosion of Regional Boundaries: The concept of distinct "regional theatres" is blurring, demanding a more integrated approach to global security.

Exam Tip

For Mains, connect this trend to concepts like "globalization of conflict," "hybrid warfare," and the "blurring lines between internal and external security."

4. Given the "moral void" and shifting global power dynamics, what are India's strategic options to safeguard its interests, especially concerning West Asia and the Indo-Pacific?

India's approach needs to be multi-faceted:

  • •Strategic Autonomy: Maintain its policy of strategic autonomy, engaging with all major powers (US, Russia, China) while avoiding exclusive alliances that could limit its options.
  • •Strengthening Multilateralism: Advocate for stronger international institutions and adherence to international law to counter the selective application of rules by powerful nations.
  • •Economic Diplomacy: Leverage its growing economic power to forge partnerships and secure energy supplies and trade routes, particularly in West Asia.
  • •Defense Preparedness: Continue modernizing its military, including developing indigenous AI and cyber warfare capabilities, to deter potential threats in the Indo-Pacific.
  • •Regional Engagement: Deepen engagement with regional partners in both West Asia and the Indo-Pacific to foster stability and counter destabilizing influences.

Exam Tip

In interview scenarios, always present a balanced view, highlighting both challenges and opportunities for India, and emphasizing proactive diplomatic and strategic measures.

5. The background context mentions Iran's "nihilism in its survival strategy." What does this term imply in the context of international relations, and how might UPSC test this concept?

In international relations, "nihilism in survival strategy" implies a state's willingness to disregard traditional norms, moral considerations, or long-term consequences in pursuit of its immediate survival or perceived security. For Iran, this has translated into cultivating proxies and pursuing a nuclear program despite international pressure.

Exam Tip

UPSC might test this by asking about the characteristics of a state exhibiting such a strategy or by providing a scenario and asking which concept it best describes. Focus on the disregard for norms and extreme measures for survival as key identifiers.

6. The article highlights that "traditional moral frameworks in conflict resolution are eroding." What factors contribute to this erosion, and why is it a concern for global stability?

The erosion of traditional moral frameworks is driven by:

  • •Selective Application of Law: Powerful nations applying human rights and international law inconsistently, undermining their universal legitimacy.
  • •Technological Distance: Modern warfare technologies (AI, drones, cyber) creating a physical and psychological distance from the battlefield, reducing empathy and direct moral accountability.
  • •Geopolitical Rivalries: Intense competition among global powers (US, China, Russia) where strategic interests often override ethical considerations.
  • •Rise of Non-State Actors: The involvement of non-state actors who may not adhere to international humanitarian law.
  • •Information Warfare: Disinformation campaigns that manipulate public perception and justify actions, blurring moral lines.

Exam Tip

When discussing the erosion of moral frameworks, consider how it impacts the effectiveness of international institutions and the potential for increased impunity in conflicts.

7. What are the immediate implications of Iran's expanding missile and drone capabilities, as evidenced by strikes against British military facilities in Cyprus, for regional and global security?

The immediate implications are significant:

  • •Escalation Risk: Increased risk of direct confrontation between Iran and Western powers, as attacks on military facilities represent a direct challenge.
  • •Wider Conflict Zone: Confirms the broadening geographical scope of the West Asia conflict beyond its traditional borders, pulling in other nations and regions.
  • •Deterrence Challenge: Poses a challenge to existing deterrence strategies, as Iran demonstrates a willingness and capability to strike targets far from its territory.
  • •Arms Proliferation: Could encourage other regional actors to develop similar capabilities, leading to an arms race.
  • •Navigational Security: Threatens critical shipping lanes and airspaces in the broader region, impacting global trade and travel.

Exam Tip

When discussing implications, categorize them into political, security, economic, and humanitarian aspects for a comprehensive answer.

8. The article mentions "Pete Hegseth's remarks about causing 'death and destruction from the sky all day long'." What is the significance of such statements from a "Secretary of War" in modern international law and ethics, and how might UPSC test this?

Such statements from a high-ranking official like a "Secretary of War" are significant because they:

  • •Reflect Policy: Indicate a potential shift towards a more aggressive or less restrained military policy.
  • •Undermine Norms: Can normalize violence and disregard for civilian casualties, further eroding traditional moral frameworks.
  • •Propaganda Value: Serve as a form of psychological warfare or deterrence, but also risk international condemnation.
  • •Accountability: Under international humanitarian law, commanders and political leaders can be held accountable for statements that incite violence or disregard civilian protection.

Exam Tip

UPSC might present such a quote and ask about its implications for international humanitarian law (IHL) or the concept of "jus in bello" (justice in war). Focus on the ethical and legal responsibilities of state actors.

9. The article links global power dynamics to the influence of the US, China, and Russia. How do these powers use their "economic and military might to influence international discourse" in the context of modern warfare?

Global powers leverage their economic and military might to shape international discourse through several means:

  • •Sanctions and Aid: Using economic sanctions or providing financial aid to influence the policies and narratives of other nations.
  • •Military Alliances and Bases: Establishing military alliances and maintaining overseas bases to project power and dictate security agendas.
  • •Arms Sales: Supplying advanced weaponry to allies, thereby gaining influence and shaping regional military balances.
  • •Information Control: Dominating global media narratives and engaging in information warfare to promote their perspectives and discredit adversaries.
  • •International Institutions: Influencing decision-making and agenda-setting within international bodies like the UN Security Council or financial institutions.

Exam Tip

Remember that "influence" is not always direct coercion; it can also be through soft power, agenda-setting, and norm-shaping.

10. The article mentions Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, and Mohammed bin Salman as key personalities. How do their individual leadership styles and national interests contribute to the current global power dynamics and the "moral void" in international relations?

These leaders, representing significant global powers or regional actors, contribute through:

  • •National Interest Priority: Prioritizing perceived national security and strategic interests above universal moral principles or international consensus.
  • •Authoritarian Tendencies: Some exhibit strong, centralized leadership, which can lead to unilateral actions and a disregard for international criticism.
  • •Realpolitik Approach: Adopting a pragmatic, power-based approach to foreign policy, where ethical considerations are secondary to strategic gains.
  • •Narrative Control: Actively shaping domestic and international narratives to justify their actions and deflect criticism, contributing to moral evasion.
  • •Proxy Warfare/Intervention: Engaging in or supporting proxy conflicts and interventions that further their geopolitical objectives, often with significant humanitarian costs.

Exam Tip

When discussing leaders, avoid taking sides. Focus on how their actions and policies, driven by national interests and leadership styles, impact broader international relations and norms.

11. How does the US-Iran dynamic, described as a "cycle of defensiveness and insecurity," contribute to the current global security interconnectedness, particularly in West Asia?

The US-Iran dynamic, characterized by historical hostility and a cycle of defensiveness, has significantly contributed to global security interconnectedness by:

  • •Proxy Conflicts: Iran's cultivation of proxies as a survival strategy against perceived US threats has fueled conflicts across West Asia, drawing in various regional and international actors.
  • •Arms Race: The insecurity drives both sides to enhance military capabilities, including Iran's missile and drone programs, which then become tools for projecting power and challenging regional stability.
  • •Strategic Alliances: The dynamic compels other nations in the region to align with either the US or Iran, creating a complex web of alliances and rivalries that can easily escalate.
  • •Energy Security: The volatile relationship impacts global energy markets and shipping lanes, making it a concern for major economies worldwide.
  • •Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, driven by security concerns, has global implications for non-proliferation efforts and regional power balances.

Exam Tip

For Mains, when discussing US-Iran relations, always link it to broader regional stability, energy security, and the role of non-state actors, as these are frequently tested themes.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. With reference to the nature of modern warfare as discussed in recent expert analyses, consider the following statements: 1. The Israel-US-Iran war is primarily aimed at conquering territory or liberating populations. 2. Experts at Raisina Dialogue 2026 noted that the West Asia conflict is expanding to include drone strikes against British military facilities in Cyprus. 3. The primary concern for Taiwan, amidst global conflicts, is the immediate shift in the fundamental military balance in the Taiwan Strait. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • A.1 and 2 only
  • B.2 only
  • C.1 and 3 only
  • D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: According to P B Mehta's opinion piece, the Israel-US-Iran war is described as an "aimless war waged as spectacle," whose real aim is simply the continuation of its own violence and to test the next generation of technology, rather than conquering territory or liberating populations. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director of ORF America, speaking at the Raisina Dialogue 2026, explicitly noted that the scope of the Middle East conflict is "obviously widening" and mentioned drone strikes against British military facilities in Cyprus, indicating the expanding range of Iran's capabilities. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: I-Chung Lai, Senior Advisor to the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, stated that current regional conflicts do not yet shift the fundamental military balance in the strait. He emphasized that the primary concern remains the "longer term the military supply" of weaponry and ammunition to ensure Taiwan's security, rather than an immediate shift in military balance. Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

Source Articles

P B Mehta writes: An aimless war is waged as spectacle. We have all devised new strategies of moral evasion | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

The screen is the new frontline: The battle against the ‘mediated afterlife’ of terror | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

International News: Latest News Today, International Headlines and Top Stories from India and Around the Globe | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

T20 WC 2026 final: Varun’s struggles leave India weighing Kuldeep Yadav option

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

Arjun Ram Meghwal writes: Recognising the unsung heroes from India’s tribal communities

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026
RS

About the Author

Ritu Singh

Foreign Policy & Diplomacy Researcher

Ritu Singh writes about International Relations at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.

View all articles →