Introduction
It has been over a year since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leading to the biggest crisis in European and global security since World War II. This unprovoked war of aggression has not only put Ukraine’s survival at stake but has also brought the world dangerously close to a nuclear brink. The conflict has raised concerns about the future of arms control negotiations and efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
Apart from Ukraine’s independence, this conflict challenges the fundamental principles of the international order, such as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-changing of borders by force, and the freedom of nations to choose their security arrangements. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s readiness to use nuclear weapons to achieve his objectives has eroded strategic stability and undermined the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The recent decisions by Russia to suspend compliance with the New START treaty and deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus have further exacerbated nuclear risks.
Russia’s Objectives and Putin’s Fear
Since the start of the war, Russia’s objectives have remained unchanged. Putin seeks to subjugate Ukraine, annex territories, and erase Ukrainian national identity. He views Ukrainian democracy as a threat to his authoritarian system, which he has built and maintained for the past 23 years. The success of democracy in Ukraine could set a dangerous example for the Russian people, undermining Putin’s grip on power.
If Russia succeeds in achieving its objectives, even partially, it would severely damage US and NATO interests. It would increase the military threat to NATO and potentially encourage other despots with revisionist ambitions to follow Putin’s example, including resorting to nuclear threats. This scenario could include an emboldened China, with expanding nuclear and conventional arsenals, seeking to subjugate Taiwan by force.
Moreover, Putin’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine. If not stopped in Ukraine, he could use force against other former Soviet countries, including NATO members such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This would directly challenge NATO’s Article 5 guarantee and the US nuclear umbrella.
Self-Restraint and Conventional Support
The United States and its allies must carefully manage the risks of nuclear escalation while prioritizing the defeat of Putin, restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, and reinforcement of the rules-based order. Allies should provide sufficient conventional weapons to enable Ukraine to repel Russia’s ongoing offensive and support a Ukrainian counteroffensive that can recover occupied territory.
However, Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling has been effective in constraining the types and quantity of conventional weapons provided to Ukraine. The fear of provoking Russian escalation has led the United States to restrain its support, denying longer-range missiles and advanced drones that could neutralize Russian weapons targeting critical infrastructure.
This self-restraint has inadvertently provided Russia with a sanctuary in occupied Crimea and neighboring regions, allowing them to launch brutal attacks on Ukrainian civilians. It has given Putin the impression that nuclear coercion works.
Unfortunately, the consequences of self-restraint for Ukraine’s war plans could be dire. While Ukraine made significant gains in the fall of 2022, thanks to the delivery of sophisticated long-range rocket and artillery systems from the United States and other allies, there may not be enough weaponry available to consolidate these gains and retake more territory in the coming months. The slow decision-making and cautiousness of US and allied defense ministries may hinder Ukraine’s ability to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia.
Ukraine needs additional capabilities such as modern tanks, armored capabilities, and air defense systems to counter Russian threats. While recent decisions to accelerate production will help, the speed at which these capabilities are provided may not be sufficient. Some senior officials in the Biden administration have even urged Ukraine to engage in negotiations with Russia, potentially freezing the battle lines and allowing Russia to hold onto illegally occupied Ukrainian lands.
Firm but Calibrated Support
The next few months will be crucial in restoring momentum to the Ukrainian campaign. The United States and its allies must unequivocally commit themselves to the goal of Ukrainian victory and act accordingly in their support for the Ukrainian military. While weapons support should be calibrated to avoid escalation, it should not be deterred by Russia’s saber-rattling.
It is essential to keep the nuclear risks in perspective. Putin has brandished nuclear threats from the beginning of the invasion but has backed down due to pressure from China, India, and other partners who were alarmed by his cavalier nuclear threats. Moreover, the United States has warned of “catastrophic consequences” for any Russian use of nuclear weapons.
However, there are no grounds for complacency. Putin continues to escalate the conflict in non-nuclear domains, targeting civilian infrastructure and terrorizing the Ukrainian population. His recent threats to dismantle the remaining constraints on strategic nuclear forces and deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are intended to raise anxiety among NATO governments and publics.
Should Russian forces suffer major setbacks or if Ukraine poses a serious threat to Russia’s hold on Crimea, Putin may renew his direct threats to use nuclear weapons. Losing control over Crimea could put intense pressure on Putin to use nuclear weapons as a desperate measure to stave off defeat and punish Ukraine and its Western backers.
While the effects of nuclear use by Russia would be severe and unpredictable, it is essential to strengthen deterrence by making it clear that breaking the nuclear taboo will result in heavy consequences, including swift military response, economic sanctions, and further political isolation. The United States and its allies must also continue arming and training Ukrainian forces fighting for independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
Ripple Effect and Other Countries
The firmness of the West in dealing with Russian nuclear coercion will have a ripple effect on other countries, particularly North Korea and Iran. Both may see the US preoccupation with the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to advance their nuclear ambitions.
In the case of North Korea, the country has conducted a major spike in missile tests aimed at intimidating the United States and South Korea. They are reportedly preparing for another nuclear weapons test and have renounced their commitment to denuclearization. North Korea may seek to provide conventional weapons and munitions to Russia in exchange for economic aid and sanctions relief, further hindering negotiations on reducing their nuclear weapons program.
Iran, on the other hand, has enriched uranium to close to weapons-grade, pushing them closer to becoming a nuclear weapon country. This undermines the value of reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Russia’s dependence on imported Iranian drones in the war against Ukraine may discourage them from pressuring Tehran to comply with its JCPOA obligations. The United States and its allies may need to consider additional forms of pressure on Iran to discourage a breakout from the deal and prevent unilateral Israeli military action.
Conclusion
The United States and NATO must deal with Russian nuclear coercion in Ukraine by providing firm but calibrated support to Ukraine. It is crucial to support Ukraine’s efforts to regain its territory, restore sovereignty, and hold Russia accountable for war crimes. The consequences of inaction would be severe, not only for Ukraine but for global security as well. The firmness displayed in dealing with Russian coercion will have a ripple effect on other countries and their nuclear ambitions. It is imperative to strengthen deterrence and send a clear message that breaking the nuclear taboo will result in heavy consequences. By standing firm and supporting Ukraine, the United States and its allies can persuade Russia to end the war, withdraw forces from Ukraine, and negotiate a political settlement that restores Ukrainian sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders.
Disclaimer: The statements and views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the author. This article is a product of a Perry World House workshop on “The Future of Nuclear Weapons, Statecraft, and Deterrence after Ukraine,” which took place on April 4, 2023, and was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.