“Deep concern” might not be the most powerful tool the West can use to punish Putin

When another wave of the Russian invasion in Ukraine is unaffected by the West’s passive attitude, it is high time for reflection about our commitments towards Ukraine, Wojciech Jakóbik writes.

Here is where history can be of help. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 became the foundation for Ukrainian sovereignty and national security. By signing the Budapest Memorandum, Kyiv handed over the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for recognition of independence from Russia and security assurances for its territory. According to many experts, the violation of the Budapest Memorandum could lead to a breakdown of the whole international political system established after 1989. Its consequences were a key theme discussed during this year’s workshops at the Odessa Summer School on Non-Proliferation organised by the Odessa I. I. Mechnikov National University and the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.

As Grigory Perepelitsya from the Diplomatic Academy in Kyiv noted, the main reason why Ukraine signed the memorandum at that time was fear of Russian aggression which could be fostered by the withdrawal of nuclear arsenal from the country. The loss of nuclear weapons turned independent Ukraine from one of the most powerful (in a military sense) into a de facto defenceless country. This is why political assurances provided by the United States, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom were critically important for the young Ukraine’s independence. On the other hand, if Ukraine would not give up its nuclear stockpile any instability in Kyiv could serve to the Kremlin as a justification for aggression or war. In this case, Moscow would most likely have gotten support from the West in order to keep stability in the region.

During the pre-memorandum negotiations, within the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) there were disputes whether Ukraine should join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Some Ukrainian politicians saw it as a warrant of international recognition of the country while others opted for a “nationalisation” of the nuclear warheads as the best defensive tool for Ukrainian statehood. In 1992, Ukraine – as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan – already agreed to reduce its nuclear arsenal and join the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). The Verkhovna Rada did not accept this decision by the Ukrainian government and asked for international guarantees. At the same time, the Rada declared that Ukraine would remain a nuclear power and would not totally give up its nuclear arsenal. This position forced Washington, London and Moscow to work on another solution and provide the assurances that the Rada was requesting. In December 1994, Kyiv signed its nuclear potential away.

Ukrainian experts who were present at the Odessa Summer School on Non-Proliferation emphasised that the Budapest Memorandum repeats fragments from the United Nations Charter on territorial integrity. However, the memorandum is not a part of the NPT so it is not properly connected to the international legal system. Thus, as former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk stated, the memorandum is nothing but a “moral declaration”. Russian lawyers have known this for years. After the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine called all the signatories of the memorandum, the UN Security Council and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for a special session. Russia refused to participate in the meeting in spite of the invitation from the United States. China simply ignored it. France – the host of the summit – granted assurances to Ukraine separately but it did not want to join any collective action aimed at Russia.

Western signatories of the memorandum have failed as allies and Russia became an invader. Now, the atypical military conflict between the two states taking place in Donbas is a result of the violation of the Budapest Memorandum. And it has greater significance for the international order, not only in Europe but globally.

The violation of the memorandum discredits other international acts of law dedicated to nuclear weapons, including the NPT. If the assurances provided by the greatest powers do not mean anything in the case of Ukraine, why should Iran resign from its nuclear programme in exchange for meaningless assurances? The conflict in Ukraine proves that assurances do not matter anymore in international politics. What does matter is pure military might – nuclear and conventional capabilities. These would eventually lead to worldwide militarisation and development of military alliances. It is observed already in Poland and in the Nordic countries. Polish President Bronisław Komorowski has called for an increase of Poland’s military budget. Sweden and Finland, for the very first time, are considering NATO membership as a real political choice.

Is it possible to bring the international order back? One of the answers may be providing Ukraine and other countries concerned by possible military invasion with new, wider and more certain assurances. A primary rule of positive law – pacta sunt servanda – collapsed and it will most likely be replaced by the law of the jungle. The passivity of the West will push Ukraine back into the Kremlin’s arms. It will mean to the EU and the US a complete loss of credibility in international relations. A bankrupted international system will not be able to stop an aggressor with a strong appetite. Very similar circumstances led to the First World War and the ruin of a system created during the Congress of Vienna. The Versailles order collapsed in the same way. If the international system based on the Budapest Memorandum collapses, sooner or later we will face another global military conflict.

This is why Ukraine needs financial, political and military assurances. The West must gain its credibility back. NATO needs to offer Ukraine military support and prepare a Membership Action Plan for Kyiv. A good solution would be NATO military drills conducted in the western part of Ukraine which is not affected by the current conflict.

It is also high time to design a “Budapest Memorandum II” which could be extended to the whole post-Soviet area and states like Iran which could give up their nuclear programmes in exchange for serious assurances backed by real political power. It is also in the West’s interest to provide Ukraine with financial aid, a transfer of technologies and help stabilize its economy. Otherwise, the annexation of eastern Ukraine by Russia is a very possible scenario. It would have far-reaching consequences for many other hot spots in the world such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the expansion of the Islamic State or even the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

If the West does not take the necessary steps, a return to the new Cold War with zones of influence is inevitable. In the long term, the nightmare scenario of a Third World War may really come true. We should all pray and hope for the soonest implementation of the means that could deter Putin and anyone who would want to shake up the international order. The NATO Summit in Wales gives the West a perfect chance to save its face.

But is the West ready for decisive action? We are running out of time to answer this question as Russian tanks are moving – deeper and deeper – into Ukraine.

Originally published at New Eastern Europe