Russian invasion wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons: Ukrainian Expert
New Delhi: An adviser to a Ukrainian deputy prime minister has said “the Russian invasion wouldn’t have started if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s.” Ukraine was once home to thousands of nuclear weapons stationed there by the Soviet Union, which the country inherited when it became independent after the end of the Cold War.
In 1994, Ukraine gave them up – and in exchange, world powers including Russia promised not to violate its security.
Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum when it joined the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which said Russia, the UK, and the US “reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
“Yes, without a doubt, If we were the owner of nuclear weapons at the moment, I think that this war wouldn’t have started, this tragedy wouldn’t have been experienced by my nation.” Svitlana Zalishchuk, a foreign policy adviser to the Ukrainian deputy prime minister for European integration told the media.
She said world powers that own nuclear weapons are “untouchable” and “are not challenged with military force because nuclear war is a danger for the whole world.”
“Because voluntarily we gave up on our nuclear weapons and the Budapest Memorandum has been ignored we find ourselves in the situation that we are in,” she said.
“If there is one country in this world, in Europe today, that can demand security guarantees it would be Ukraine, exactly because we gave up our nuclear weapons, exactly because we received this assurance from the strongest powers in the world that they will protect us if anything happens,” she continued.
Beyza Unal, deputy director of the international security program at think tank Chatham House, said she understands why Ukrainians might feel “betrayed” but said the memorandum gave their country “assurances” – not a “guarantee” – which are not legally binding and have no enforcement mechanism.
She also pointed out the nuclear weapons Ukraine had inherited could not have been used without investing in additional infrastructure.
“It was Soviet inventory,” she said. “You can’t actually use those weapons without having any command and control structure that is linked to the weapon system.
“It was almost impossible for Ukraine back in the day to use that even as a bargaining chip for the future.”
She said it is “unknown” whether Russia would have attacked Ukraine if the country had kept the weapons and invested in a post-Soviet nuclear program.
She gave the example of the 1973 Yom Kippur War that happened even though there were rumors Israel had started developing nuclear weapons before then.
She said having nuclear weapons will not always prevent states from getting attacked, adding: “It’s just speculation.
“What the world realized back in the 1960s, 1970s, was that if more and more countries have nuclear weapons, then that would cause a huge catastrophe,” she said, “because, in the end, someone would decide to use their weapons.
“The risk to us trumped the idea that proliferation would have ended in a positive way.”
Tom Unterrainer, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, suggested the issue lies with Russian President Vladimir Putin being allowed to have nuclear weapons in the first place – rather than Ukraine needing them.
Referring to the leader’s decision to put nuclear deterrent forces on high alert in Russia, he said: “Putin has actually revealed to the world the reality of nuclear weapons possession: they are not a deterrent, they are a threat. Putin is throwing around the nuclear threat.”
Tom added: “It turns out that he’s a very unpredictable and potentially malicious leader who is in possession of the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and he’s actively and publicly breaking the nuclear taboo, speculating and putting measures in place driving towards their use.”
(_Vinayak)
