Russia Pushes Nuclear Threat to Brink

By JASON SIBERT

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the global discourse on nuclear weapons. nnRussia is one of the world’s primary nuclear powers, the United States and Russia own 90% of the world’s arsenals with 11,405 between the two countries. Russia has broken international law by invading a sovereign country. In the deliberations at the inaugural meeting of the states parties of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna in June, the Ukraine war cast a long shadow over the utility of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and as a tool of coercive diplomacy, as stated by Ramesh Thakur in his July 18 report for The Strategist, “How Much Damage have Putin’s Threats Done to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime.”

At the meeting in Vienna, Austrian Ambassador Alexander Kmentt said the 50-point plan of action, the Vienna Declaration (a plan to affirm the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) was strong from a multilateral standpoint, as stated by Thakur. Some countries wanted to censure Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but the Vienna Declaration adopted an even-handed tone. In paragraphs four and five, participants expressed alarm and dismay at the “threats to use nuclear weapons and increasingly strident nuclear rhetoric.” They condemned unequivocally “any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances,” and also their use “as instruments of policy, linked to coercion, intimidation and heightening of tensions” rather than to preserve peace and security.

Thakur points out in his story that some have said that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had the country kept its nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He also points out what a flawed argument that it is. Like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s weapons, the Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine belonged to the Soviets and not Ukraine. Not one of the nuclear armed states of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would have tolerated a state with 1,900 to 2,500 nuclear weapons.

The Ukraine War proves the lack of utility of a nuclear arsenal. Russia has 6,000 nuclear weapons and it hasn’t convinced Ukraine that it should surrender. Ukraine has defended its territory and it assumed that such weapons are not usable. Russian President Vladimir Putin has reminded NATO of the lethality of his arsenal, and it hasn’t kept NATO from shipping weapons to Ukraine. NATO has refrained from introducing ground troops or enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. One must remember NATO failures in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia since the end of the Cold War. The operations against these minor opponents brought more instability to the regions in question. Who would want to own the chaos of a NATO/Russia war?

Unfortunately, the Ukraine crises makes nuclear arms control with the Russians very difficult. Russia has clearly broken its pledge under the 1994 Budapest memorandum to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and borders in return for Ukraine giving up the nukes. Russia’s behavior (backed by the nuclear threat) might encourage states like Iran and North Korea to behave in the same manner.

At the source of this problem is the fracturing of the world order between the US and its allies and China and its allies (which includes Russia). It’s true that Russia and China are trying to expel the US and its allies from their sphere of influence. It’s also true that Russia has broken international law to do so, and China might do the same thing in Taiwan. However, the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe in the 1990s, led by the US, was also a mistake. It kicked off Russia and China’s balancing act. Returning to some sense of order will a challenge in the years to come. Let’s hope the diplomatic arm of our government, and other governments, will be more resourceful in the future.

Jason Sibert of St. Louis is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy Project (peaceeconomyproject.org).

From The Progressive Populist, September 1, 2022

Populist.com