Ukraine Crisis – Some Reflections

It was really a treat to read Swaminomics titled ‘Disarmament is for wimps: Go get your nukes if you can’, in Times of India dated 20^th April, 2014.

The author Mr. Aiyar, forcefully argues in favor of nuclearisation of any nation state, as a panacea for ensuing its territorial integrity. He has dwelt upon the fact that when the erstwhile Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine emerged as one of the independent states with a massive 1,190 nuclear warheads, more than the arsenals of Britian, France, and China combined. But according to Mr. Aiyar, Ukraine mistakenly thought that the Soviet Union’s collapse heralded the end of Moscow’s domination. So, it agreed to give up all its nukes and send them to Russia for destruction. In return,  the US, Russia, and Britain, signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, pledging to safeguard Ukraine’s territorial sovereignity. This was then greeted with a universal applause.

According to Mr. Aiyar, today Ukraine knows it made a terrible mistake, as it can no longer deter its powerful neighbour. Last month, Russia sent troops to annexe Ukraine’s Crimea Province. Now Russia threatens to split the rest of Ukraine, converting Eastern Ukriane, where a quarter of the population is ethnic Russian, into a puppet state, just as it earlier used armed muscle to convert Russian ethnic regions of South Ossetia and Rbkhaza in Georgia, into puppet states. And unfortunately enough, neither the US nor the UK, both Budapest Memorandum guaranters are willing to stop Russia militarily.

To further buttress his point, Mr. Aiyar highlights the fact that while the US was quick to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, it does not dare touch North Korea which has violated the UN Charter repeatedly, attacked South Korean ships and poses a security threat to East Asia. Simply because North Korea has nukes.

Prima facie, there is much merit in Mr. Aiyar’s hypothesis. And it may be possible as he predicts, that non-nuclear states like Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia may go nuclear in future, as they may not consider it wise anymore to outsource their security to western powers, going by Ukraine’s woes.

But it would be worth reflecting on some anecdotes from international relations, which have a strong bearing on this hypothesis:

a)      If indeed President Putin had hegemonic ambitions in his region, then how come he decided to wrest control only of Crimea, and has eyes on part of Ukraine only? There are other CIS countries as well, which are in a state of abject poverty and underdevelopment. Most of their well educated and skilled citizens have migrated to Russia and elsewhere in search of better opportunities. Their existing citizens might be willing to give up their so-called independence, in return for economic prosperity, better governance, and above all fool proof security as existed during the Soviet era. To cite just one example, during one of my visits to a CIS country few years ago, I was taken to a facility which once supplied warm water round the clock, during peak winters to the entire capital city of that country. That was during the Soviet era, but it was now lying abandoned and was in ruins,

b)      Hypothetically, had Ukraine retained its nuclear warheads till date, it may not have been able to avert its current woes, as Russia is also one of the world’s leading nuclear powers. President Putin would have been too shrewd enough to realize that no Ukrainian leader would dare risk a nuclear confrontation with Russia, as that could imply complete annihilation of that state,

c)      If the UK and the US are hesitant to take on Russia militarily today, the reasons are more economic, and have less to do with the military costs of such a confrontation. Their economies are now just coming out of recession and slowdown, and hence they simply cannot afford any misadventure, which can set their economies back to the mess. Given an interdependent globalized world, the Russians are only too well aware of this fact, and Russian economy would  also not be able to get away unscathed, should the US and UK economies were to suffer disastrous setbacks again,

d)      History has an answer for this deadlock today. It would be worth taking a cue from the Cuban missile crisis, when both the US and erstwhile Soviet Union came dangerously close to a nuclear confrontation. The ending of that crisis peacefully, bears out saner counsels from both sides triumphing ultimately. Same can be expected in the current scenario as well,

e)      And finally, coming to Mr. Aiyar’s prediction about Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia turning nuclear powers to safeguard their territorial integrity. His contention is that Saudi Arabia is fearful of both Iraq and Iran. It is worth noting that nearly a quarter century ago, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and the allied forces led by the US evicted him few months later. Reason? Kuwaiti oil. The same would hold true if either Iraq or Iran were to repeat the stupidity of Saddam Hussein, by threatening Saudi Arabia. Such an analogy can be extended to both Japan and South Korea as well. Both may not be oil rich, but certainly have tremendous economic opportunities for most of the world community.

To conclude, while the Ukrainian leaders need not regret so much on their decision to give up nuclear warheads when it became independent, but they certainly need to regret of not making Ukraine an economic powerhouse, which might have been a powerful deterrence to Russia for embarking upon any misadventure, as that would have meant sabotaging its own economic interests.