Rumors of the Death of Nonproliferation Are Greatly Exaggerated

The nonproliferation regime is stronger than many people seem to think.

Andreas Umland and Hugo von Essen insist that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has delivered a devastating blow to the nonproliferation regime:

Middle powers not protected by larger alliances such as NATO can learn three simple lessons. First, it is good to have nuclear weapons—either to advance your designs on another country’s territory or to deter just such an attack. Second, it is not good to give your weapons away. Third, it makes little sense to rely on treaties, memoranda, assurances, and other statements—even if they are fully ratified, legally binding, and supported by the governments of the world’s most powerful countries.

It is popular now to claim that Ukraine made a mistake by agreeing to the removal of nuclear weapons from their country, and this is a big part of the argument that Umland and von Essen make. If only Ukraine hadn’t given up weapons that it didn’t control and couldn’t have maintained, the story goes, this would have somehow made the country more secure by ensuring that Russia would never have used force against them. This story ignores the fact that Ukraine was never in a position to retain the weapons. It also ignores that possessing nuclear weapons does not necessarily guarantee immunity from attack.