The Russia-Ukraine War has entered its fifth year. The frontline is frozen and has hardly moved in the last year, casualty figures are abnormally high, and there are no signs that the Ukrainian resistance is collapsing, nor does anyone expect Kyiv to launch a striking counter-offensive and liberate its lost territories.
The war has essentially reached a stalemate, not unlike the Western Front during the First World War, a 400-mile-long frontline of defensive trenches that remained remarkably static for nearly four years (1914-1918), yet claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
As Europe’s deadliest war since the Second World War grinds on, both Ukraine and Russia are under pressure to bring a swift resolution to the conflict.
However, the multiple rounds of peace talks have, so far, resolved nothing, and a ceasefire appears as distant today as it was one year ago.
Is this military and political stalemate forcing both sides to seek out-of-the-box solutions? A magic wand that can break the status quo at the frontline?
If one listens to the new nuclear rhetoric coming out of Russia, then it certainly appears to be the case, and the plan is more diabolical than you can imagine.
Russia has alleged that the UK and France are trying to supply a nuclear weapon to Ukraine, or assist Kyiv in developing a “dirty bomb” and providing a delivery system for its launch.
The rhetoric also comes at a dangerous time when the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between Russia and the US has expired.
UK, France Trying To Supply Nukes To Ukraine?
Russian intelligence services, government officials, and state-controlled media outlets have launched a new information campaign about alleged “Ukrainian nuclear weapons.”
According to Russia’s TASS news agency, Russia’s State Duma has signed and sent an open letter to British and French lawmakers, calling for an “impartial investigation” into alleged plans to provide nuclear weapons to Kyiv.
Earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) revealed that Paris and London are actively engaged in covert operations to supply Kyiv with nuclear arms and delivery systems.
According to intelligence sources, European components, equipment, and technology are being clandestinely transferred to Ukraine.
“One of the options under discussion involves the French TN75 warhead – a compact nuclear device designed for the M51.1 submarine-launched ballistic missile,” Russian military analyst Andrey Marochko said.
Marochko underlined that the West’s frustration with its inability to change the military situation on the ground is leading it to explore nuclear options.
“Currently, the West recognizes that no meaningful progress or victories are achievable through conventional engagement in the near future.
“Given the current balance of forces and the tactical situation along the frontline, Ukraine has little hope of victory, if at all. Nevertheless, the West seeks to prolong the conflict by any means necessary, escalate tensions, and engage in a hybrid warfare strategy against Russia,” he said.
The analyst warned that supplying nuclear technology to Kyiv could transform Ukraine into a “terrorist state capable of wielding nuclear weapons,” and warned that Ukraine will not hesitate to launch nuclear strikes inside Russia.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that “such extremely dangerous plans by London and Paris demonstrate their loss of a sense of reality.”
The Federation Council of Russia sent appeals through diplomatic channels to the parliaments of the UK and France, as well as to the European Parliament, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Meanwhile, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots, Viktor Vodolatsky, warned that Russia will destroy the nuclear weapon enroute to Kyiv, if this scenario occurs.
“A nuclear weapon is not a needle in a haystack. It will be destroyed en route to Kyiv. We have all the necessary resources for that. We will protect our territory from the use of a nuclear weapon. We will have to destroy it on the territory that will be the last point before its delivery to Ukraine,” the senior Russian lawmaker said.
Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, commenting on the SVR statement, said that if nuclear or radiological weapons are transferred to Kyiv, Russia would strike Ukraine and the supplying countries with any weapons at its disposal.
This rhetoric by Russia also raises the question of whether the Kremlin is preparing the ground to use some sort of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and then saying that it took the step in its self-defense.
France and the UK have denied the allegations.
A French foreign ministry spokesman said the allegation was “blatant disinformation”. A spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “There’s no truth to this.”
While Ukraine has also denied the allegation, it is important to note that President Zelenskyy has repeatedly criticised Kyiv’s decision to give up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal in the 1990s without obtaining proper, binding security guarantees.
In the early 1990s, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited 1,500 to 2,100 strategic and 2,800 to 4,800 tactical warheads, making it the world’s third-largest nuclear power.
However, on December 5, 1994, Ukraine gave away its substantial stockpile of Nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees by the US, the UK, and Russia that they would protect its territorial integrity.
Though Ukraine was not the only post-Soviet country to inherit and then give up nuclear weapons, Belarus and Kazakhstan also inherited hundreds of nuclear weapons but decided to transfer them to Russia.
However, nearly three decades later, Russian nuclear weapons have returned to Belarusian territory.
So, one might argue that if Russia can deploy its nuclear weapons to Belarus, why can’t Western countries also transfer their nukes to Ukraine?
Meanwhile, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning urged all sides to avoid actions that could escalate tensions.
“We call on relevant parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and avoid any moves that may lead to misunderstanding and miscalculation and even escalation,” Mao said, adding that she was “not familiar with the specifics”.
“China always believes that nuclear weapons must not be used, a nuclear war must not be fought, and international non-proliferation obligations should be earnestly observed”.
Nuclear Weapons Returned to Belarus After Three Decades
33 years ago, on July 22, 1993, the Republic of Belarus acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The Republic of Belarus became the first State to voluntarily renounce the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons remaining after the collapse of the USSR without any preconditions or reservations. The withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the territory of the country was fully completed in November 1996.
Similar to Ukraine, the UK, the US, and Russia also provided security guarantees to Belarus. However, everything changed after Russia violated these security guarantees and invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
On February 27, 2022, three days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko held a referendum in Belarus to change Belarus’ nuclear-free status and amend the Constitution, removing from Article 18 the phrase “The Republic of Belarus aims to make its territory a nuclear-free zone and the state a neutral state”.
In 2023, Russia officially began deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) on the territory of Belarus.
Last year, Russia also deployed its nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile to Belarus.
On June 13, 2023, Lukashenko said that he himself had asked Vladimir Putin to “return nuclear weapons to Minsk” and that he was ready to use them “without hesitation in case of aggression against Belarus”, which indicates the actual transfer of nuclear weapons to the operational control of Belarus.
Theoretically, Ukraine could argue that the security guarantees provided to Kyiv have been violated, so just like Belarus, it is also entitled to keep nuclear weapons.
Notably, France has offered to provide a nuclear umbrella to its European partners.
France made that offer first in 2020 and then again during the Munich Security Conference earlier this month.
In international politics, extending nuclear protection to a non-nuclear state is a well-established pattern.
The US has offered nuclear protection to Japan, South Korea, and Germany.
So, ideally, Ukraine could also request nuclear protection. However, unlike Japan, South Korea, or Germany, Ukraine is involved in an active military conflict and extending nuclear protection while the war is still underway could be risky.
Also, Russia has alleged that France and the UK are trying to covertly smuggle a nuclear device into Ukraine. That is very different from providing a nuclear umbrella.
However, Russia has offered no evidence for its allegations.
Notwithstanding the nuclear information campaign by the Kremlin, in the future, a French nuclear umbrella for Ukraine is not out of the question.
If Belarus could enjoy a nuclear umbrella, Kyiv could also demand the same protection.
- Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from The University of Sheffield, UK.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
- He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
