Ukraine and the missing nuclear deterrence

It is interesting to note that Ukraine — which inherited hundreds and thousands of nuclear weapons including a huge conventional force capability — gradually began not only to rescind the inherited nuclear forces by signing the Lisbon Protocol in 1992 whereby it became an NPT member with no nuclear weapons, but also heavily reduced its conventional force capability by signing the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Given the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the more recent large-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian leadership is regretting giving up its inherited nuclear forces including a large-scale reduction of conventional force capability. Considerably, credible nuclear forces along with modern conventional weapon capability complement to nuclear weapons play a significant role in terms of reducing the vulnerability and deterring potential adversary from large-scale military attacks.

Ukraine — devoid of such capabilities and nuclear security guarantee from the US and NATO — was vulnerable to military invasions. Russia exploited this strategic vulnerability, and invaded Ukraine as part of its strategy to suppress Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. It is largely considered within the realist paradigm that if Ukraine had possessed nuclear weapons and/or could have become part of the NATO in the early 1990s, the strategic environment could have been different. Russia would think many times before launching an invasion. Such is the harsh reality of international politics where states often consider that the international system remains anarchic. States potentially work hard for their survival. They remain rational actors. They also develop offensive military capability. The uncertainty between states — foes or friends — continues to exist.

Without seriously realising the deep interpretation of the logic of realism imperative, one, for example, can observe the fate of Syria, Libya and Iraq. Both Israel and the US keep military option open against Iran’s nuclear facilities when and if Iran crosses a threshold unacceptable to them both. A revival of JCPOA remains uncertain. While learning lessons from such invasions, North Korea thought it could be the next. It thus quit the NPT and developed and tested its nuclear weapon capability for security purposes. North Korea has recently tested Hwasong-17, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a range of 13,000km capable of hitting any part of the US.

Security analysts argue that if Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons, its fate could have been the same as mentioned. Primarily, Pakistan developed nukes for security and deterrence purposes. It follows a full-spectrum deterrence under the ambit of credible minimum deterrence. Unlike India, it is a responsible nuclear weapon state which takes a good care of its nuclear facilities through best practices and institutional mechanism without misfiring its missiles across the border bearing unintended consequences. At the minimal level, it attempts to develop effective counter measures to plug the gaps against its adversary when and if needed. Its indigenous modernised conventional forces complement to nuclear deterrence remains reassuring that could potentially confront conventional and non-conventional challenges. Pakistan acts rationally in the international system in accordance with the changed strategic environment.

Given the prevailing security environment in the international system, realism teaches Pakistan to continue to possess nuclear weapons while maintaining its safety, credibility and reliability; become part of treaty for peaceful uses of nuclear technology; address its vulnerability by developing advanced conventional force capability; deter its adversary; protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity by possessing offensive military capability; and sustain a fair amount of balance between the traditional and non-traditional security imperatives when it comes to its broader National Security Policy.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 30^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.