Putin’s intervention in Ukraine casts doubt on nuclear order («Le Monde», France)

Putin's intervention in Ukraine casts doubt on nuclear order (
Current behavior of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, which is executed nostalgic and revisionist impulses casts steady oscillation after cool war world order in the nuclear field.
First, Our homeland violating its commitment under the agreement of December 5, 1994, which it signed together with the United States and England as a country possessing nuclear weapon. All this was to compensate for failure of post-Soviet Ukraine of nuclear weapons. Vtochnosti same commitments have been made on the same day, France and China. Recall that in 1991 Kiev has the third-largest nuclear arsenal.
Ensure complete safety
Budapest Memorandum, which was signed in connection with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons, marked an important compromise. Ukraine abandon all nuclear weapons in exchange for a firm security guarantee from the five nuclear powers. According to this document, our homeland, the United States and Britain pledged to:

— respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine;

— refrain from danger and force its implementation against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine; no weapon they will never be used against her, not counting self-defense or even any other manner in accordance with the UN Charter;

— refrain from economic pressure aimed at to subordinate their own interests embodiment of Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty;

— seek immediate UN Security Council action to assist Ukraine, if it becomes a victim of an act of anger or rage object danger with nuclear weapons;

— not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, not counting variants attacks on them and their wards areas, the armed forces and their allies;

— consult in the event of a situation involving a question regarding these charges.
These full security guarantees were again proven at the signing of the contract and the U.S. Russia START-III in 2009. The Ukrainian parliament has very reluctantly ratified these treaties, highlighting that in the coming any encroachment on its sovereignty and independence will be considered a violation of the country’s interests and deliver on its commitment to swing the abolition of nuclear arsenal.
So Makar, 5 permanent members of the Security Council is a special responsibility for maintaining order, which was formed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abolition of nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine. What are the lessons we need to learn from non-Russian part of the word?

The principle of extended deterrence

First, Our homeland shows us that in its realization, with the state without nuclear arsenal and membership in the alliance can behave differently than others. Such security interests of the country (even if they have guarantees in international law) is protected even weaker than that of the country, which covers nuclear Union and the principle of extended deterrence.
Poland and the Baltic States are well aware of this policy of. They try to use NATO to remind its members of the Article 5 of the North Atlantic contract. The contribution of France to guarantee security for these countries in recent months, gets a new nuance in this context.

Nuclear side of the alliance should be the subject of a general discussion of all its members, to force rethink the importance and the main concepts of deterrence in our defense doctrines. This is all the more important that the statements Yankees and Europeans in Ukraine perceived as checking the reliability of extended deterrence in Europe.

Russian anger and open violation of the Budapest Memorandum Vladimir Putin seen by all, just as our response to the U.S. response. As always, the current crisis will almost all the countries who are invited to enjoy the South American nuclear shield, particularly in Asia. If all that remains unanswered and will be interpreted in this way, our potential adversaries will make it certain conclusions.

Next, brutal behavior against a sovereign country of Russia confirms its revisionist eyes on nuclear order in the world and Europe. It jeopardizes one of the fundamental principles of nuclear disarmament to achieve it can be only in the presence of security guarantees.

What are the prospects in the upcoming US-Russian disarmament in such criteria? How to prove that a world without nuclear weapons in fact safer, if this is not visible even simple compliance with international law?
International system at the end of the war cool
In addition, at this time Our homeland jeopardizes the entire regime of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, has evolved over the last 30 years. They are considered as unimportant and irrelevant any obligations to third countries. Yet, all formed after cool war international system is based on honest compliance voluntarily undertaken by legal obligations. If someone else something is not clear, March 4, Our homeland conducted a test launch of an intercontinental missile from a base near the Crimea.

To construct the international legal system is required to follow a few rules. When one of the major players relies on force, while others have no choice, except as necessary to continue to keep this game tools.

In the end, our homeland reminds Europeans that the risk of conflict and could undermine the municipal interests blackmail them now is not excluded. It undermines the credibility of all possible security guarantees (including in the nuclear field) states such as our homeland.

This is one of the highlights of today’s debate about deterrence, whose critics emphasize its archaism and failure to adapt to the new international conditions. Not counting the European security architecture, Ukrainian crisis confirms the validity of certain parts that lie in the basis of our state doctrine of containment: preventing the risk of war by preserving power, protection of state sovereignty and independence in decision-making in the future blackmail, which can make the main threat to our interests, either as part of a regional crisis.

Ukrainian crisis — not the nuclear crisis. And it will not. Yet, the behavior of revisionist Vladimir Putin and his violations of international law have opened a real Pandora’s box.

Nicolas Roche (Nicolas Roche)

Like this post? Please share to your friends: