11 March 2022, NIICE Commentary 7691
Krishnaveer Singh Chahar
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put the international system under strain. It is a testament to the fact that power politics still hold sway over international politics, and great powers often have no regard for international norms and agreements. The war in Ukraine has raised some pertinent questions regarding the future of arms control and disarmament. Ukraine’s decision to give up nuclear weapons and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has come under a scanner. Counterfactual questions like – had Ukraine kept its nuclear arsenal, Russia would not have attacked are coming up. Though these questions may not matter much for Ukraine now, they pose a question about the future of arms control and disarmament. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has major implications for not just regional but global non-proliferation regime.
The arms control regime has been under strain for quite some time. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and the open skies treaty are already dead. The Non- proliferation Treaty (NPT) has not been able to adapt to the changed scenario as there are four nuclear weapon states (India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea) that are not part of it. It is also unlikely that any of these states will give up their weapons to join the NPT. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has made it all more difficult to have the meaningful dialogue on arms control and disarmament treaties.
Russia has violated the Budapest Memorandum twice now, the first being annexation of Crimea in 2014. Under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances. The United States, Britain, and Russia assured Ukraine that its independence and sovereignty will be respected. However, all three powers have failed to live up to the expectations. It cast doubt on the intentions of powers that preach disarmament. For example, why would a country like North Korea give up its nuclear weapons when its security is not guaranteed, rather it depends on the whims of powerful nations like the US and Russia?
Russia’s actions and the US’s failure to stop the invasion have raised questions on the credibility of their words when it comes to agreements and memorandums. Nuclear diplomacy depends on trust and confidence to a great extent. However, that trust does not seem to exist at the moment. On top of that, the NPT recognised Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) have failed to implement article 6 of the treaty, which asks NWS to work towards nuclear disarmament. The lock of progress on article 6 does not go well for the future of the NPT. Under this backdrop, Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons to deter intervention by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Alliance). It is interesting to see that Russia has used the idea of nuclear deterrence to deter intervention by nuclear weapons states. Therefore, nuclear deterrence itself has become a tool to carry out invasion smoothly.
After Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is now an example of the risks disarmament carries. It does not set a good precedent as it makes the task of disarmament all the more difficult. Even the relations between the US and Russia have reached a new low. The relations between Russia and the US had been on the decline even before the Ukraine invasion. However, it is now unlikely that there will be any meaningful dialogue on arms control in the foreseeable future. The tense relations between the two countries have put the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) in limbo, which expires in 2026. It is also fair to assume that strategic stability dialogue between the two countries, which seek to work on arms control measures, will also be put on hold for the near future.
The war in Ukraine also has implications for the ongoing Iran Nuclear deal talks. There is already a considerable distrust between the US and Iran after the US unilaterally pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or nuclear deal in 2018. To return to JCPOA is not going to be easy as it requires the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to cooperate with each other. However, the rift between the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has only widened since the invasion. The lack of cooperation is visible by the fact that Iran nuclear deal talks have been put on hold due to “external factors”. External factors is none other than Russia and its ongoing war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has exposed the delicate security environment in the international system and has shown that countries are willing to break international norms to achieve their objectives. It will be interesting to see how countries will negotiate arms control treaties. Lack of trust between the countries does not bode well for the future of arms control.
Krishnaveer Singh Chahar holds Masters in International Politics from Jamia Millia Islamia, India.
