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 »
In a lengthy Facebook post, Mark Zuckerberg responded to reports that Cambridge Analytica had accessed the personal data of 50 million users, and kept the data after being told by the social media company to delete it. "I started Facebook," wrote Zuckerberg, "and at the end of the day I'm responsible for what happens on our platform ... While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past." On Monday, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called for “Mr. Zuckerberg and other CEOs” to testify "about social media manipulation in the 2016 election."
"The White House is backing a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill despite opposition from some House conservatives ... 'The President and the leaders discussed their support for the bill, which includes more funds to rebuild the military, such as the largest pay raise for our troops in a decade, more than 100 miles of new construction for the border wall and other key domestic priorities, like combatting the opioid crisis and rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure,' White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement." The details of the bill are expected to be released later today.
The Federal Reserve bumped the key rate from 1.5 to 1.75 percent, "the highest level since 2008 but still low by historical standards." The board "signaled it would raise rates two more times this year, part of an ongoing move away from the extraordinary measures it took to boost the economy during and after the great recession."
"Administration officials said they expect Congress to pass a stopgap bill to avert a third government shutdown this year as lawmakers scramble to finalize a must-pass omnibus spending bill. White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told CNN Tuesday that negotiators are getting closer to reaching an agreement, but there are "too many obstacles to tackle" for the omnibus bill to make it out of the lower chamber by Thursday."