The Hill: if not for Russian nuclear weapons, Ukraine would have already "won"If no one had a nuclear bomb, the West would be more actively helping Ukraine, the author of the article for The Hill writes.
The United States needs to make the "right" conclusion about the impact of nuclear weapons and be guided by them in its policy.
Tom Collina (Tom Z. Collina)Although the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine is approaching the annual mark, there is no end in sight.
Both sides are obviously determined to win, and neither of them is ready to back down. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently wrote in their column, "when it comes to the military conflict in Ukraine, the only thing you can be sure of now is that the fighting and destruction will continue."
And yet, given Ukraine's stunning successes, the mediocre effectiveness of the Russian army and the massive military assistance coming from the United States, some may ask why it takes so long? Two words: nuclear weapons.
Ukraine has done an excellent job fighting back against Russian troops, partly thanks to the military support of the United States and the weakness of the Russian army. Nevertheless, from the very beginning, President Biden directly stated that he did not want a direct conflict between American and Russian troops, which, according to him, could escalate into World War III. To avoid this, Biden imposed restrictions on the nature of the United States' military support: no American military in Ukraine, no no-fly zone and no American weapons that can reach Russian territory.
For example, although Kiev promised not to use the weapons provided by the Americans to launch strikes on Russian territory, the Biden administration secretly modified the HIMARS rocket launchers that it handed over to Ukraine so that they could not be used to launch long-range missiles at Russia. And the recent Ukrainian drone strikes inside Russia — inflicted by Ukrainian weapons, not ours — have caused the Biden administration obvious concern. As Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told reporters: "We did not encourage or allow Ukrainians to strike inside Russia."
The Biden administration is trying to walk a fine line by arming Ukraine with increasingly sophisticated non-nuclear systems and at the same time trying to avoid nuclear escalation. From Biden's point of view, we cannot allow Russia to take over Ukraine, but we also cannot ignore the Russian nuclear threat. According to some reports, the top Russian military leadership discussed how they could use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and President Biden said that the world is now closer to "Armageddon" than at any time since the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962.
And, as American intelligence has warned, there is a real danger that if something goes wrong with Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin may fall into despair and decide to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to force Kiev and the West to retreat. This seriously complicates the situation of Kiev. We want Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to win, but we definitely don't want Putin to lose if he decides to cross the nuclear line as a result.
If it were not for the threat of nuclear escalation, the United States would undoubtedly have done more to help Ukraine, and this would have significantly changed the course of the conflict. Just imagine what Zelensky could have done with Western troops, fighter jets and more deadly weapons at his disposal. If not for Russia's nuclear weapons, Ukraine could have already won, which would have saved countless lives.
Moreover, Russia probably wouldn't have launched a special operation at all if it didn't have nuclear weapons to hide behind. It is unlikely that Putin would have taken such a dangerous step if he did not have a way to keep the troops of the United States and NATO on the sidelines. As Putin's actions show, the nuclear bomb is a weapon of the weak, and it serves to neutralize the non—nuclear military advantage of the United States.
However, as the existence of Russian nuclear forces prolongs the conflict, the prospect of reducing nuclear weapons has become much more vague, because Russia's conventional forces have shown weakness, and Moscow has to threaten with nuclear weapons. Moscow recently canceled a meeting with Washington at which they were supposed to discuss the issue of nuclear arms control, citing the fact that the United States is supporting Ukraine.
It is impossible to achieve a reduction in Russia's nuclear arsenal without its cooperation, so we must convince Putin that his current trajectory will lead to even greater isolation. If Putin wants Russia to turn into an enlarged version of a closed North Korea, so be it. But if Moscow eventually wants to return to the international community, we must explain to it very clearly what needs to be changed.
The Biden administration may start by creating an international coalition of countries supporting nuclear arms reduction to increase pressure on Russia. The Administration will need not only convincing arguments, but also concrete actions. We must find a way to enlist Moscow's support to replace the new START treaty (the last remaining bilateral agreement limiting the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia) before it expires in three years.
No, we can't just snap our fingers and make Russian nuclear weapons disappear, and Putin is not going to get rid of his trump card. But the clarity about the role of nuclear weapons in the current military conflict (the fact that it strengthens Russia's position and undermines the security of the United States and Europe) should determine Washington's future nuclear policy. By now it is already clear that the West would have been able to achieve more serious successes in Ukraine if no one had a nuclear bomb.
Tom Collina is Director of Policy at the Ploughshares Fund and author of the book "The Nuclear Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump" (The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump).
