Should Ukraine Have Gotten Rid of Its Cold War Nukes?

A woman protests against Russian military intervention in the Crimea region of Ukraine on Sunday in New York City.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman
March 3, 2014, 8:55 a.m.

With Rus­si­an troops now oc­cupy­ing Ukraine’s Crimean Pen­in­sula, Kiev’s belea­gered in­ter­im lead­ers may be think­ing twice about their na­tion’s 1994 de­cision to aban­don nuc­le­ar weapons.

The East European coun­try ac­tu­ally held the world’s third-largest nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al after the dis­sol­u­tion of the So­viet Uni­on. But Kiev in 1994 agreed to trans­fer all its atom­ic arms to Rus­sia for elim­in­a­tion, shortly there­after joined the Nuc­le­ar Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty as a non-nuc­le­ar na­tion, and with­in two years was weapons-free.

At the time, John Mearsheimer was one of very few who saw it as an un­wise move.

“As soon as it de­clared in­de­pend­ence, Ukraine should have been quietly en­cour­aged to fash­ion its own nuc­le­ar de­terrent,” the Uni­versity of Chica­go schol­ar wrote in a 1993 For­eign Policy piece. “A nuc­le­ar Ukraine … is im­per­at­ive to main­tain peace between Ukraine and Rus­sia. … Ukraine can­not de­fend it­self against a nuc­le­ar-armed Rus­sia with con­ven­tion­al weapons, and no state, in­clud­ing the United States, is go­ing to ex­tend to it a mean­ing­ful se­cur­ity guar­an­tee.”

Today Mo­scow is send­ing more troops to Ukraine, where it bases its Black Sea Fleet, amid con­sterna­tion in Wash­ing­ton and throughout Europe that the na­tion’s en­tire east­ern re­gion might soon fall un­der Rus­si­an con­trol. Pres­id­ent Obama last Fri­day threatened there would be “costs” to Rus­sia if it in­ter­vened, but stopped short of of­fer­ing spe­cif­ics.

Is Mearsheimer — still a polit­ic­al sci­ence pro­fess­or at Chica­go — feel­ing vin­dic­ated?

“I do think they should have kept their nukes,” he said on Sunday via email. “If Ukraine had a real nuc­le­ar de­terrent, the Rus­si­ans would not be threat­en­ing to in­vade it.”

Even giv­en Rus­sia’s Cold War-re­min­is­cent ac­tions over the past week, oth­ers are think­ing Ukraine’s two-dec­ade old move to jet­tis­on its nuc­le­ar stock­pile was the right call. In fact, Krem­lin-backed Ukrain­i­an Pres­id­ent Vikt­or Ya­nukovych in 2011 called for oth­er na­tions in the re­gion to join his coun­try in cre­at­ing an East European nuc­le­ar weapon-free zone.

“Ukraine with nuc­le­ar weapons is one heck of a dan­ger­ous idea,” John Isaacs, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Coun­cil for a Liv­able World, said in a Monday email. “There is already in the mix east­ern Ukraine vs. west­ern Ukraine, East vs. West Cold War over­tones, Rus­si­an vs. U.S. in­ter­ven­tion­ism. … It would be like toss­ing a pack­age of lighted matches in­to a vat of flam­mable flu­ids. The res­ults would be un­pre­dict­able, but haz­ard­ous for every­one’s health.”

Yet, re­wind­ing his­tory just a few weeks, Mearsheimer said it is pos­sible that none of the re­cent in­stabil­ity in Ukraine would have oc­curred if the na­tion had kept its atom­ic arms at the close of the Cold War.

“I doubt wheth­er we would have been so anxious to foster a coup,” Mearsheimer said of the United States, had Ya­nukovych and his gov­ern­ment wiel­ded a nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al. “One treads very lightly — to put it mildly — when threat­en­ing the sur­viv­al of a nuc­le­ar-armed state, or even the re­gime in charge of it.”

Isaacs, however, sees the risk of nuc­le­ar war as simply too high for these arms to act re­li­ably as a sta­bil­iz­ing tool for con­flict de­terrence.

“There is no pre­dict­ing what Rus­sia would have done if Ukraine had re­tained nuc­le­ar weapons,” he told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire. “We do know that the risk of nuc­le­ar holo­caust would have in­creased im­meas­ur­ably.”

What We're Following See More »
MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Panama Papers Spur White House to Crack Down on Evasion
48 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

In the The White House on Thursday night unveiled a series of executive actions to combat money laundering—"among the most comprehensive response yet to the Panama Papers revelations." The president's orders will tighten transparency rules, close loopholes that allow "foreigners to hide financial activity behind anonymous entities in the U.S., and demand stricter “customer due diligence” rules for banks.

Source:
THE QUESTION
Who’s #NeverTrump Courting as Possible Candidates
57 minutes ago
THE ANSWER

The #NeverTrump movement is now mulling the idea of recruiting a candidate to run as an independent or under a third-party banner. But who might it be? The Hill offers a preliminary list.

  • Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)
  • Mitt Romney
  • 2012 (and perhaps 2016) Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson
  • Former Marine Gen. John Kelly
  • Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
  • Former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
  • South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
  • Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Source:
362,000 JOBS ADDED
‘Mildly Disappointing’ Jobs Report
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The U.S. economy added 160,000 jobs in April, a "mildly disappointing" result relative to the 200,000 expected, according to the New York Times' Neil Irwin. On the plus side, hourly earnings were up 2.5% from a year ago. But on the other hand, "the labor force shrank by 362,000 people and the labor force participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points."

Source:
AND VICE VERSA
Plurality of Trump Voters Just Want to Stop Clinton
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday." When Trump supporters were asked to give their primary reason for supporting him, 47% said to block Clinton from winning. In almost a mirror image, 46% of Clinton supporters said they were primarily out to thwart Trump.

Source:
IF HE’LL JUST LISTEN…
Many GOPers Still Think Trump Can Be Brought to Heel
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×