As Russia rattles the nuclear sabre again, is there a path forward for global security?
Russia’s decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus raises proliferation concerns, highlights geopolitical discord and underlines the urgency of achieving an ethical consensus on the use of weapons of mass destruction
As the intractable war in Ukraine, initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 24 last year, reaches the 400-day mark, Moscow has visibly upped the ante by announcing it will station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Putin said the trigger for the move was the UK’s decision to provide Ukraine with ammunition containing depleted uranium, although the latter cannot be compared to tactical nuclear weapons.
This is not the first time Russia has rattled its formidable nuclear sabre. Putin ordered the military to put Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert just days after the war began. And last September, Moscow’s assertive nuclear signalling in the face of military setbacks was deemed to be a case of amber lights flashing.
US President Joe Biden gravely observed on October 6, “For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon – if in fact things continue down the path they are going.” He added: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”
After Russia’s announcement of its plan to station nuclear weapons in Belarus, the US sought to assuage global concerns, with a senior official saying there were no signs Moscow planned to use its nuclear weapons. However, the reaction in Europe has been one of anger and dismay. Ukraine has sought an emergency session of the UN Security Council to “counter the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail” and has also accused Russia of holding Belarus as a “nuclear hostage”.
Based on past experience, the Security Council is unlikely to take any meaningful steps because Russia is a permanent member and can count on the support of China to blunt any attempt to censure it by the United States, France and the UK – the other permanent members of the global body.
Three aspects of Putin’s decision to move tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus merit review. The first is the commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, as spelled out in the global treaty on the issue; the second is the geopolitical implications of the prevailing strategic orientation of the major powers; and, the third concerns the ethics of invoking nuclear weapons and depleted uranium.
03:15
Ukraine calls for emergency UN meeting as Putin says Russia will deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus
Ukraine calls for emergency UN meeting as Putin says Russia will deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus
The term “tactical nuclear weapons” broadly refers to low-yield warheads as opposed to those with a much larger destructive potential. Tactical nuclear weapons were deployed by both the US and former Soviet Union during the Cold War decades, although they were never used in combat. In what may now seem preposterous, military planners initially saw these weapons as super-artillery guns.
However, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis that pushed the US and former Soviet Union to the brink of a nuclear exchange introduced much needed restraint in the management of nuclear weapons. Progressively, the tactical nuke was relegated to the background, and deterrence was maintained between the two adversarial superpowers without the brandishing of this category of weapon.
Both the US and the Soviet Union interpreted the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 1968, to advance their strategic objectives. Putin has cited the US’ stationing of nuclear weapons in Nato nations in Europe to justify Russia’s decision to do the same.
Meanwhile, the changing geopolitical orientation of major powers in the wake of the Ukraine war is also cause for concern. This was reflected in the meeting this month of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin in Moscow, during which the contours were outlined of a resolute Sino-Russian partnership that pushes back against what the two nations see as a US-led hegemonic order.
However, in relation to nuclear weapons, the joint statement issued by the two countries after Xi and Putin met said, “All nuclear powers must not deploy their nuclear weapons beyond their national territories, and they must withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed abroad.”
The contradiction between this statement and Putin’s announcement on Belarus is obvious and will add to the prevailing discord over the management of weapons of mass destruction. Hence, there is a need to arrive at a global consensus that accords with the larger ethical imperative.
03:41
Xi and Putin deepen China-Russia partnership in Moscow talks, but no Ukraine peace deal details
Xi and Putin deepen China-Russia partnership in Moscow talks, but no Ukraine peace deal details
The complexities thrown up by the Ukraine war should help illuminate the often obscured humanitarian cost of the use of weapons of mass destruction for tactical reasons. The apocalyptic nature of nuclear weapons must compel the world to resolve that the destruction wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not be repeated and the taboo against the use of such weapons will not be breached.
Putin has cast the move to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus as a response to the UK’s decision to supply depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. While some might disagree with such a justification, if it leads the world into an escalating spiral of weapons of mass destruction, the issue could be revisited.
Given the horrendous consequences of any accidental or deliberate use of nuclear weapons, perhaps China and France can enable a modus vivendi in the Security Council to ensure that, while the war in Ukraine may well continue, the nuclear threat is effectively quarantined.
Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar is director of the Society for Policy Studies (SPS), an independent think tank based in New Delhi
