|
|
|
|
|
|
by wazokazi
947 days ago
|
|
|
Mearsheimer was prescient when he advocated Ukraine be allowed to keep a strategic nuclear stockpile in the early 90s when the US admin was pushing to disarm Ukraine, post breakup of USSR. The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent
Most Western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake.
A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. If the U.S. aim is to enhance stability in Europe, the case against a nuclear-armed Ukraine is unpersuasive.
[1]But, he does give Putin a pass on the invasion itself. Couldn't Putin have won the desired
concessions with just sabre-rattling and having a skirmish on the border instead of a full on invasion,
which is slowly destroying both Ukraine and Russia. [1] https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears... |
|
|