In 2009 Mr. Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his calls for a "world without nuclear weapons". Even at the time, the former US president's hopes seemed illusory as emerging or revisionist powers instead invested in the atomic race. Fifteen years later, with disarmament treaties out of date and some countries dangerously sliding nuclear weapons in their tactical form from the concept of deterrence to the concept of use, these pacifist dreams seem to be a bygone era. This is what political analyst Isabelle Lasser wrote in an article for the French newspaper Le Figaro.
This is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous consequences of the war in Ukraine for the international strategic order. By regularly brandishing the nuclear threat, Vladimir Putin has largely contributed to the disappearance of the nuclear taboo. From February 2022 "aggressive inviolability" allowed him to rely on Russian nuclear capability to carry out his major offensive in Ukraine. By manipulating the fear of nuclear escalation, the Kremlin managed to limit the military support of the Western countries to Ukraine, prohibit their direct participation in the conflict and frighten a part of their population overwhelmed by "fatigue and temptation to give up". in the name of false security.
The Kremlin's trivialization of nuclear weapons actually began in 2014, when the Kremlin used the threat of nuclear fire to defend its annexation of Crimea. Since then, it has been lashed out whenever Russia has difficulties on the ground or wants to push back the West. On February 27, 2022, the Russian nuclear device was placed on standby. In April of that year, to try to prevent Sweden and Finland from joining NATO. In March 2023 with the deployment of tactical nuclear missiles in Belarus. In February 2024, to make the possible deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine impossible. Most recently, in the context of possible negotiations with Donald Trump back in the White House, Russia once again brought nuclear rhetoric into the war by launching an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Putin also expanded the conditions that could justify the use of nuclear weapons by revising his nuclear doctrine.
Putin's verbal escalations
A priori, everything suggests that the nuclear threats from the Russian authorities are essentially political blackmail. Vladimir Putin would have no interest in taking action by launching a tactical nuclear attack that would spell the end of his regime. Verbal escalations by Russian leaders and propagandists have never been accompanied by suspicious movements of nuclear weapons on the ground. Russia's nuclear posture, closely monitored by Western services, has not changed. China also continues to play a moderating role, regularly warning Moscow that nuclear power represents an absolute red line for it.
But apart from the fact that we cannot completely rule out extreme action by the Kremlin master if one day he is cornered, the trivialization of increasingly free discourse on nuclear energy, the repeated threat of developing weapons for use , have already changed the international strategic environment. Authoritarian powers could, imitating Russia's actions in Ukraine, seek to alter, for revisionist purposes, the nuclear-resistant political or territorial status quo, end the conflict on favorable terms, or impose new fait accompli on democracies. "Without nuclear weapons, Russia would have already been kicked out of Ukraine by NATO. All over the world, everyone understood it," says a French officer.
After Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq in 2003. and the 2011 intervention against Gaddafi's Libya, the war in Ukraine represents a new impetus for renewed global nuclear proliferation. These three countries, under different conditions, were attacked after abandoning their nuclear program. Many around the world have learned their lesson. Especially Iran. After the failure of the diplomatic solutions taken by the international community, Tehran has given a strong push to its military program and today it has become a threshold country. It can even more easily and quickly enter the club of nuclear states, as Russia, which previously cooperated with the West to curb its program, is now cooperating with Tehran in exchange for valuable military aid in its war in Ukraine. The prospect of a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, since after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. regime officials promised to "wipe Israel off the map".
Global Nuclear Danger
To avoid war between Israel and Iran, Joe Biden asked Benjamin Netanyahu to spare nuclear facilities in response to massive missile attacks on the Jewish state. If US news site Axios is to be believed, citing two Israeli officials, Israel did destroy the equipment needed to develop Iran's nuclear explosive device in late October. But since then the Islamic Republic, which is using international strategic environmental chaos to advance its nuclear program, has announced the commissioning of "new advanced centrifuges".
The emergence of a nuclear (Shia) Iran will push the Sunni powers in the region - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt - to also embark on the nuclear adventure. But the nuclear danger also comes from North Korea, which has sent 10,000 troops to support Putin's war in Ukraine and whose behavior toward the southern part of the peninsula is becoming increasingly belligerent.
"Democratic distribution"
Since Donald Trump's first term fueled doubts about the reliability of the US umbrella protection, the US's Asian allies have also been hesitant to enter the nuclear race. According to a recent survey, 70% of South Koreans would prefer this option. Temptation also exists in Japan. In Europe, we can already measure it in Poland, where, faced with the deployment of new weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus, the government says it is ready to deploy nuclear weapons on its territory if NATO decides to strengthen its eastern flank again.
But the "democratic spread" now it also reaches Ukraine. In 1994 the newly independent Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons against protection from the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, which were supposed to guarantee its security and territorial integrity: Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, later joined by China and France. In 2014 and then in 2022. the wars started by Russia against Ukraine and the passivity of the international community revealed the futility of the guarantees from Budapest. Since then, there have been bitter voices in Ukraine condemning the 1994 decision. "Either Ukraine develops nuclear weapons and will be protected by them, or Ukraine must return to NATO. Because today NATO countries are not at war...", said Vladimir Zelensky on October 17. The only option that has never been considered by the Ukrainians is that of capitulation and submission to Russian power.
"If we are talking about ending the war and security guarantees, we must be logical. Bilateral agreements will not be enough to ensure Ukraine's security. There are only three solutions. The first and best would be an invitation to NATO, but the US and Germany are against it. The second would be to abandon Kiev, which would be disastrous for both Ukraine and Europe. The third is the development of the Ukrainian nuclear program," explains a diplomat. Of course, many believe that the Ukrainians would not have the means, at least without the help of allied countries; and that such a choice would have an excessive political, economic and military cost because it would jeopardize the support of Ukraine's Western partners. But others recall that France helped Israel acquire nuclear weapons in the 1950s to contribute to the security of the Jewish state and to serve its own military program. "Can we wish for a world where only rogue states proliferate? Or can we accept the principle of democratic distribution? Precisely because we did not react in time, we are doomed to such a choice," the diplomatic source continues.
After the first nuclear age, the one that lasted from 1945 until the end of the Cold War; after the second nuclear age, accompanying the period of detente and disarmament after the collapse of the USSR; the third nuclear age carries the risk that multiple actors will engage in the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe, but also in Asia and the Middle East.