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 »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."