Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a number of nations have significantly upgraded their nuclear arsenals. The indicators lead towards the direction of deterrence rather than disarmament.
 |
| [NATO-vs-Russia Poster] |
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, ordered the nation's nuclear forces to be placed on high alert not long after the conflict started. Following a series of threats made in recent months by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev followed suit and issued a warning against dragging the Russian government before the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Ukraine. He cited the possibility of nuclear war as his justification. What exactly does Russia want to accomplish by making so many allusions to nuclear weapons? Are they a major cause for concern? Is Moscow trying to aggravate the situation? Is the goal to stop the West from maintaining its support for Ukraine in the long run? Or should we truly be concerned about the outbreak of nuclear war in Europe?
All of a sudden, Europeans are once again placed in the position of being threatened by a confrontation that might put their lives in danger and include a nuclear-armed Russia and the nuclear alliance that is NATO. This is a significant defeat for attempts to prohibit nuclear weapons and, more generally, for efforts to regulate weapons of mass destruction. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has made it very clear that the nuclear deterrent policy will continue to be effective and that it would never, under any circumstances, give up on the idea of nuclear sharing in Europe.
The "good old days" of arms control after the end of the Cold War, when numerous arms control agreements were concluded and the number of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems in Russia and the United States was drastically reduced, have long since passed. These "good old days" of arms control occurred shortly after the end of the Cold War. Arms control has been under a lot of pressure for a number of years now for the following reasons: arms control treaties have lapsed and have not been renewed; there are no longer any arms control forums; the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that was intended to be achieved with the NPT has not been achieved; today, in addition to the five recognized nuclear powers, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea also have nuclear weapons; the recognized nuclear powers have not fulfilled their obligation to disarm; and a number of Significant aspects of international weapons control are disintegrating.
Now, Russia has further damaged this already hopeless condition of nuclear arms control with its bellicose language about nuclear weapons. In response to this, NATO has confirmed and is potentially going to extend the sharing of nuclear weapons in Europe. The nuclear sharing system was developed at the start of the Cold War with the intention of halting the spread of nuclear weapons among Western allies. European strategists also harbored the expectation that this would result in a closer involvement of the United States in the security of Europe. At the same time, though, it should make certain that the Europeans are also held accountable for their part in the matter.
Prior to the start of the conflict, the issue of nuclear weapons did not rate very highly on the political agenda. Despite the fact that President Donald Trump of the United States has terminated many significant arms control accords, nations who do not possess nuclear arsenals began the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. The goal of this international convention, which was ratified by 122 member states of the United Nations in 2017, is to outlaw nuclear weapons everywhere in the globe.
There have always been two schools of thought when it comes to the appropriate use of nuclear weapons, and these schools of thought have been almost fanatically opposed to one another. Supporters of the nuclear deterrence argue that it was successful since nuclear weapons have not been deployed in warfare since 1945. On the other hand, opponents hold the view that the danger posed by these terrible weapons, which are capable of destroying whole continents, is typically irresponsible. Those who support arms control also stress the need of maintaining nuclear stability, arguing that if nuclear weapons do exist, they should at least be regulated and maintained in as coordinated a manner as is humanly feasible.
The conflict in Ukraine starkly highlights the advantages and limits of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and as a tool of diplomatic pressure. This is especially obvious in light of the recent nuclear test that took place in North Korea. Before the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, there were serious conversations about the United States pulling out of its nuclear sharing agreements with four of the nations that have nuclear arsenals: Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. The concept of nuclear sharing was widely considered to be a remnant of the Cold War. Only Turkey chose to go in the other direction. In 2019, President Recep Tayyip Erdoan said that it was unacceptable for governments that had nuclear weapons to wish to prohibit Ankara from building its own nuclear weapons. He claimed that this was unacceptable. This was a reaction to the decision made by the United States government to exclude Turkey from the F-35 combatjet program. This decision was made in response to Erdoan's insistence on purchasing a Russian missile defense system. A large majority of the public in each of the other four nations voted in favor of the United States pulling out its remaining nuclear weapons.
This, however, has entirely altered as a result of the war that is being waged against Ukraine. A survey conducted in Germany found that just 39 percent of respondents supported the United States removing its nuclear weapons. During the most recent NATO conference, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the need of nuclear sharing. It would seem that the discussion concerning the future of atomic weapons in the United States inside the SPD has been concluded. After years of contentious debate, the federal government of the United States has chosen to join the next wave of nuclear modernization by purchasing new nuclear-capable F-35 fighter fighters in the United States. This decision was made just a few days after Russia launched an assault on Ukraine.
The general desire to update the notion of nuclear sharing has been met with enthusiasm by officials from NATO, who have expressed their excitement about the topic. The head of the NATO Directorate for Nuclear Policy, Jessica Cox, was quoted as saying, "We are fast and aggressively updating the F-35 and incorporating it into our planning and drills..." In addition to this, she said that "the highly developed capabilities of the aircraft will also strengthen the capabilities of Alliance members and F-35 customers like as Poland, Denmark, or Norway who may be entrusted with supporting real nuclear division operations."
There are other countries besides Turkey that are considering their own nuclear capabilities. Will the majority of NATO nations, or maybe even all of them, soon be included into nuclear sharing? The voices being raised throughout Europe are becoming more audible. In an interview, Manfred Weber, the head of the European People's Party (EPP), stated, "We must now also speak about the nuclear option." And Christoph Heusgen, the president of the Munich Security Conference, came out in support of increasing the security of Europe and stated, "With respect to the nuclear protective shield, we have to speak to France..."
Will Emmanuel Macron's proposals, who has frequently advocated for "strategic autonomy" for the EU and a debate on France's nuclear deterrent with "our European allies," now become a reality? When Macron suggested the conversation in the year 2020, his European counterparts responded in a cautious manner. This Franco-European nuclear scenario, which aims to achieve more independence from the United States, is incompatible with the nuclear sharing structure that is controlled by the United States. As a result, many problems remain unaddressed.
The ongoing pattern of increased escalation should not prevent us from making a critical assessment of the nuclear component, which continues to ensure "mutually assured annihilation." There is still an immediate need for crisis and escalation management with regard to nuclear weapons. However, the tried and true paradigm of bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia is no longer enough in today's world. The previous bilateral nuclear order has given way to a global arms race, which has, up to this point, been mainly advanced in an uncoordinated manner according to the national goals of the United States of America, Russia, China, and India. However, this has now changed. As a result, the discussions on nuclear sharing and nuclear arms control had to be reinstated on the table in order to bring peace to the situation regarding the worldwide nuclear community.
Control of nuclear weaponry should not be left up to the US and Russia to negotiate bilaterally. An action taken by the governments of European countries would be of great assistance in this situation. In light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the turbulence in international politics, it is, of course, challenging to establish the level of trust that is essential for such conversations and to demonstrate moderation in the development of new forms of weapons. In a nutshell, an escalation of the conflict is still on the table at the present.
Even if many countries continue to emphasize the necessity for nuclear arms control and disarmament, the truth is that the focus has shifted to updating and prioritizing the arsenal. This is the case despite the fact that many nations continue to underline the importance of these issues. Of the other hand, there is still the possibility that other measures, most notably the NPT and the next tenth NPT Review Conference, may give the nuclear arms control agenda a fresh lease on life.
The author Prof. Dr. Herbert Wolf is the former head of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC).