NATO and the West should heed Russia's warnings and prevent a nuclear catastrophe
The West should not ignore Moscow's warnings about the possible use of nuclear weapons, writes the South China Morning Post. NATO no longer attached due importance to Russia's demand for non-expansion to the east, the author recalls. Everyone knows how it ended.
Zhou Bo
– If Russia is not bluffing about its readiness to use nuclear weapons, then by ignoring its legitimate security interests, we are condemning the world to destruction.
– Since there are no prospects for a ceasefire, the main task is to reduce tensions. As a first step, NATO can unilaterally commit itself not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Russia constantly hints at escalation with the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe it's a bluff—but what if it's not? Unlike the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to the surrender of Japan in World War II, if Russia opens another nuclear Pandora's box, you can imagine any outcome.
Put yourself in President Putin's shoes. You are convinced that there is an indirect war going on in Ukraine between the United States, its Western allies and Russian troops. Weapons of all sorts and colors poured into Ukraine from Europe. Allegedly, the support of American intelligence led to the death of the cruiser "Moscow", the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia, and a number of army generals.
Unlike President Kennedy, who in 1962 had both the courage and caution to negotiate with Nikita Khrushchev on the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for a promise by the United States not to invade there, the current President Joe Biden behaves provocatively. He called Putin a war criminal and said that "this man cannot remain in power."
Nuclear war is even closer now than during the Cold War. No one will say exactly when and where Putin may use nuclear weapons. But if it seems to him that a nuclear strike will be needed to turn the tide in an exhausting conflict in which Russian troops do not look too convincing, he may well use it.
As Stephen Walt of Harvard University wrote in Foreign Policy magazine this month, Putin does not throw words to the wind. This is evident from the Russian war with Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and, of course, the current conflict in Ukraine.
If Putin imagines that he is destined for the role of St. George, whose miracle about the snake is part of the Russian coat of arms, then his weapon will not be a long spear, but a nuclear missile — Russia has the most of them. And the goal in this case will not be Ukraine, which he considers "fraternal", but one or even several European countries.
Since there are no prospects for a ceasefire, the main task is to reduce tensions. As a first step, NATO can unilaterally commit itself to refrain from a first nuclear strike on Russia — under any circumstances. It is unlikely that Russia will reciprocate right now, but it will be a gesture of goodwill, and it will be possible to start negotiations with it.
NATO can well afford it, because it does not threaten its deterrence capabilities in any way. And in general, it is difficult to imagine why a transatlantic alliance of 30 members with unsurpassed conventional forces would be the first to use nuclear weapons against a single enemy.
The Pentagon says that America "will consider the possibility of using nuclear weapons only in emergency circumstances to protect the vital interests of the United States, its allies and partners." This is already close to the "no first use" policy.
As a next step, NATO may commit to stopping further expansion in exchange for Russia's counter-rejection of a nuclear strike first. Moscow will certainly consider this proposal worthy of attention, since its main concern is precisely the expansion of NATO to the east.
The alliance, which with the accession of Finland and Sweden will grow to 32 members, is already a giant. In general, all military alliances are like leeches and live off "threats". However, if NATO has to expand all the time because of the threat from a single country, it speaks more about the incompetence of the alliance than about strength.
NATO will easily object that it is not at all that it wants to expand, but that the countries themselves want to join it in order to protect themselves from Russia. There is some truth in this, but in general it is unconvincing. The more popular NATO is, the more suspicious Europe becomes.
Take, for example, Finland's application for membership in NATO. President Sauli Niinisto told Putin that the Russian operation in Ukraine has radically changed the security situation, but the current situation and security in general are different things.
Does Finland really have to break with eight decades of neutrality, thanks to which Moscow and Helsinki have built stable and pragmatic relations? In addition, this step will double the alliance's border with Russia and exacerbate Moscow's sense of insecurity.
Finally, the third step is negotiations on new security mechanisms in Europe, including, among other things, security guarantees for Ukraine. This may require a commitment not to deploy nuclear weapons on the periphery of Russia, which Moscow considers its sphere of influence, but the key point is the negotiations on a new treaty on conventional armed forces (CFE).
Signed in 1990, the CFE Treaty crossed out the numerical advantage of the USSR and established equal limits on the number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters for NATO and the Warsaw Pact from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains.
The new treaty should limit the numerical advantage of NATO in conventional weapons in Europe, given the glaring inequality between Russia and the alliance today. In return, NATO may ask Moscow to reduce its nuclear arsenals, which it has more than the United States, France and Great Britain combined.
The conflict in Ukraine erupted because NATO ignored Russia's warnings and continued to expand. If NATO similarly ignores the warning that it can use nuclear weapons, then an atomic war and a global catastrophe, which was avoided even during the Cold War, will become proof that human stupidity is endless.
Retired Senior Colonel Zhou Bo is a senior researcher at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University and an expert at the China Forum. Former Director of the Center for Security Cooperation of the Department of International Military Cooperation under the Ministry of Defense of China.
