Ukraine's nuclear regret?

 
Russian troops occupy a Ukrainian base near Simferopol on 5 March, 2014. Would nuclear weapons have deterred Russian military action in Crimea?

At least one Ukrainian politician is wondering whether his nation should have kept its nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In 1994 the US, UK, Russia and Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which the three powers offered assurances that they would respect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, is having second thoughts.

"We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," he told USA Today's Larry Copeland. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

Mr Rizanenko's logic is sound, writes USA Today's James S Robbins.

Start Quote

If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea”

End Quote Walter Russell Mead The American Interest

"The problem with Ukraine trading its most potent weapons for Russia's promise of good behaviour is now evident," he says.

"Kiev gave up its means of deterring Russian aggression. Now, Ukraine is overmatched in conventional forces and would have difficulty fighting off a Russian incursion."

He argues that current and future nuclear powers, such as Iran, North Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan, should take note: deterrence works.

There's a lesson for the US, as well:

For America, the message is to give up the quixotic quest for "global zero", build up missile defences and modernize the U.S. nuclear force. To live in the 21st Century, the United States will need to relearn the lessons of the 20th.

The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead agrees.

"If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea," he writes. "It gave up its nukes, got worthless paper guarantees, and also got an invasion from a more powerful and nuclear neighbour."

He cites Libya as another example of a nation that negotiated away its nuclear programme only to sacrifice its security.

"The choice here could not be more stark," he writes. "Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped."

Start Quote

Nuclear weapons are simply not the effective deterrent that most people think”

End Quote Gareth Evans Former Australian foreign minister

That's just not true, counters Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia. He says such a view has "dangerous policy implications".

"Nuclear weapons are simply not the effective deterrent that most people think, whether the context is deterring war between large nuclear-armed powers or protecting weaker states against conventional attack," he says.

An arsenal that is "suicidal to use", he argues, is not an effective deterrent. Russian President Vladimir Putin would know that Ukraine wouldn't use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea, so the outcome in that regional crisis would probably be the same today even if Ukraine were an atomic power.

Nuclear weapons are a destabilising element, he concludes, and the risks of mistaken or ill-conceived use far outweigh any benefits they may have.

As much as we like to speculate about what Ukraine as a nuclear power would do, writes the American Conservative's Noah Millman, the reality is that Ukraine never really had a choice.

"Western and Russian interests were aligned in wanting to see Ukraine denuclearized; an independent nuclear Ukraine would have been treated as a dangerous rogue state," he says.

As for the Libya example:

Dictators may well learn the lesson from Libya that denuclearization will not bring Western protection - which is true. It does not therefore follow that a nuclear Libya could have done anything different to defeat its insurgency.

Posing counterfactuals - what would happen today based on past actions not taken - is always a tricky business. It's a game, however, that commentators and analysts seem eager to play.

 

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 82.

    #80 Clement

    "Why are sanctions being imposed on Russia by the UK, EU & US?"

    --to justify their existence.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 81.

    80. Agree, pointless - Ukraine has long standing issues on gas with Russia* and a split public on EC v. Soviet affiliation. Russia is the gas solution for the Ukraine and pushing rope for an EC alliance by Ukraine leadership makes no sense. Like South Ossetia, the Crimea voted to split from the fractured Ukraine as not being heard. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 80.

    Why are sanctions being imposed on Russia by the UK, EU & US?

    Can anyone explain without using neutral arguments (arguments that apply to similar situations elsewhere but are ignored by the US and EU) or meaningless soundbites or straw man comments (changing the subject to a distantly related subject in order to divert from the original topic.)?

    I've asked on other forums and had no replies.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 79.

    70. The UN is the only world organization that can possibly hope to cope with US jingoism long term - the next Republican White House/Congress (2017) will revert back to the Bush Jr/Cheney Neo Con age and start warmongering for resources again - and on the backs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients who will experience deep cuts to finance yet another US world hegemony presence.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 78.

    Whether some policy wonk thinks nuclear weapons would be used is irrelevant. The whole point is that the consequences if they are make the provocation not worth the risk. Does anyone seriously think Putin would have risked nuclear war to acquire Crimea as opposed to negotiating a better basing deal or more autonomy for the ethnic Russians there?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 77.

    Not knowing what Ukraine would do in case it was invaded would have been the deterrent. It is a compelling deterrent for aggressors.
    North Korea would not exist as it is today without its nuclear arms. Iran is reviewing its options. Powerful nations attack less powerful nations. It is the bully fact. it applies to children at school , it applies to nation states. Would Putin invade Alaska. No.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 76.

    "Nuclear weapons are simply not the effective deterrent that most people think, whether the context is deterring war between large nuclear-armed powers or protecting weaker states against conventional attack"

    Yes, let's disarm now! (sarcasm)

    BTW Would've loved to see this argument being offered to Ukraine/Libya as the reason why they should disarm: 'Er, I think we'll take our chances actually!"

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 75.

    It is obvious that giving up Nuclear arsenals was always the intention of the invader of these countries. One might want to consider that instead of the idea that they would have or not have used them to protect their own lands. The 'Kremlin' has always carried on in this fashion. I believe the USA strengthening their own arsenal is reasonable and called for at this time, so we appear stronger.

  • Comment number 74.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 73.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 72.

    Nuclear Weapons always deter. US never attacked Iran and NK because of nukes and it attacked Iraq because it knew there were no WMD. The West needs to take a hard look at itself before blaming Russia.

  • Comment number 71.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 70.

    What use has the United Nations been in all this? Every tax payer is contributing in one form or another to this huge bureaucracy and when needed to do what it was set up to do it does nothing. Shut it down and rely on close friendly countries to help you. The more friends you have as a country the safer you will be, Perhaps the world will then want more friends than enemies.

  • Comment number 69.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 68.

    So if Ukraine still had its nukes and Russia still did the same with at the moment the loss of one life would Ukraine have used them ? if the answer is yes then it's just as well for the rest of the world that they did give them up.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 67.

    Yes and Who knew this better than Libya and Iraq At that time, Ukraine was still not seen as an ally, if not a threat. Now, not protected as an ally...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 66.

    I am on neither side in this conflict. I just want to point out that most of the nuclear weapons, stationed in the ukraine at the time of the end of soviet union, wouldn`t be there anymore. ukraine has a huge corruption problem. just like the other ex-soviet republics.
    remember the 30 illegal tanks seized by somali pirats in 2009. yuschtschenko and timoschenko where in goverment.

  • Comment number 65.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 64.

    Gareth Evans quote seems sensible but the remainder of the article ignores any analysis of the deterrent effect of powerful, well-equipped and effective militaries.

    Perhaps powerful militaries is what has kept the USA, Germany (during the Cold War), Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and China relatively safe for so many decades, rather than any reliance on their nuclear weapons.

  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

 

Page 1 of 5

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.