In August, the NPT Review Conference, which was held by the parties to the NPT to review the treaty’s implementation, failed to adopt a substantive outcome document due to Russian objections over a reference to the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. This optimism waned, however, as Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine and started issuing nuclear threats. The five nuclear-armed permanent UN Security Council members caused a flicker of optimism when they issued a statement in January 2022 stating that nuclear war “cannot be won and must never be fought,” thereby seemingly reaffirming their commitment to the nuclear taboo. With ever fewer nuclear arms control treaties in place, the world is approaching the wrong kind of “global zero” – a world with zero arms control treaties but an increasing number of nuclear warheads. Whether Russia will take this initiative is uncertain. Although US President Joseph Biden recently expressed his willingness to negotiate one, he also indicated it is Russia’s responsibility to demonstrate its commitment to resuming arms control cooperation after its invasion of Ukraine. New START, the last existing bilateral nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia, is set to expire in 2026, and its replacement by a new treaty is uncertain. Since the 2002 US withdrawal from the US–Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, North Korea has left the NPT, Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – prompting the US to withdraw from it –, the US pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, and the US and Russia left the Open Skies Treaty. The international nuclear arms control regime has been eroding for some time. In an environment of rising geopolitical tensions and eroding arms control regimes, such challenges have the potential to fundamentally change the global nuclear security architecture. A wide range of other threats and challenges stem from other revisionist actors. Īlas, Russian brinkmanship is only the most immediate threat to the international nuclear order. Therefore, the international community’s response to such an attack would have to be measured enough to prevent further escalation, yet strong enough to prevent the precedent of an unpunished nuclear strike. There is alsoĪ risk, however, of triggering a spiral of further escalation with a strong response to a Russian nuclear attack. If a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine were to go unpunished, it would severely damage the existing nuclear order and make future use of nuclear weapons more likely, as it would set a precedent of nuclear attacks being an acceptable and possibly beneficial course of action in military conflict. Russia’s nuclear threats pose a fundamental challenge to those seeking to prevent the use of nuclear weapons now and in the future. By questioning the nuclear taboo, neglecting its obligations under the NPT, and breaking its commitment to Ukraine, Russia has lost its credibility as a responsible nuclear-weapon state. The nuclear taboo refers to the idea that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction so abhorrent that their use is considered unacceptable. The NPT, at its core, is a grand bargain in which the five recognized nuclear-weapon states – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – pledged to act as responsible nuclear powers and pursue eventual nuclear disarmament in exchange for the continued non-proliferation of the other NPT parties. By threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, a state that in 1994 gave up its own nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russia’s commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russia has undermined two key pillars of this order: the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the nuclear taboo. With its revisionist war of aggression, Russia has upended the international nuclear order.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |