Editorial of the Day (22nd May): Risk of Russia’s Nuclear Posturing

Context

• The Russia-Ukraine war has entered its second year with no end in sight.
• Russia announced plans to hold drills simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons along the Ukrainian border.
• In March, Russia declared it would station nuclear weapons in Belarus, indicating nuclear posturing during the conflict.

Justifications and Responses

• Russia cited statements from leaders aiding Ukraine as reasons for its nuclear posturing:
  • French President Emmanuel Macron suggested potential troop deployment to Ukraine.
  • British Foreign Secretary David Cameron mentioned Ukraine’s use of British long-range weapons to strike inside Russia.
• Russia’s claims that these statements pose an existential threat are seen as exaggerated and indicative of brinkmanship rather than genuine security threats.

Shift in Understanding of Nuclear Deterrence

• Historically, nuclear deterrence is based on the principle of mutually assured destruction, where any nuclear use would lead to massive destruction on both sides.
• Nuclear weapons were reserved for existential threats.
• Russia’s willingness to consider nuclear options in a non-existential threat context represents a significant shift in nuclear deterrence principles.
• This shift undermines the clear distinction between nuclear and conventional warfare.

Dangerous Precedents

• Russia’s nuclear threats at lower conflict levels could set a precedent for other nuclear powers to use nuclear weapons as coercive tactics.
• Smaller nuclear-armed nations might feel emboldened to threaten nuclear use to deter stronger conventional military opponents.
• Countries like Iran and North Korea might reconsider their nuclear policies, feeling encouraged to develop or maintain nuclear arsenals to deter threats.

Impact on Non-Proliferation Efforts

• Russia’s actions could undermine global non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.
• The war highlights the vulnerability of non-nuclear states to aggression from nuclear-armed states.
• Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum now appears ill-advised, as security assurances from nuclear powers proved ineffective.
• Iran has hinted at revisiting its nuclear doctrine in response to perceived existential threats from Israel, which could further undermine non-proliferation efforts.
• Smaller nations might be discouraged from pursuing disarmament, fearing nuclear aggression.

Implications for Global Security

• The war has created a new nuclear flashpoint, altering the understanding of nuclear deterrence.
• Russia’s actions demonstrate how nuclear weapons can provide asymmetric advantages in conventional warfare.
• This increases proliferation anxieties, especially in regions with long-standing tensions between states.
• The potential for nuclear war could overshadow deterrence, leading to an increase in nuclear proliferation and instability globally.

Sharing is caring!