FINAL PAPER 202142055 OGBOLE OCHE REVIEWED
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Memorial University of Newfoundland *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
201
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by MegaKnowledge2936
QUESTION: DISCUSS HOW THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE HAS
AFFECTED THE THREAT OF THERMONUCLEAR WAR AND INCLUDE A
DISCUSSION OF HOW NUCLEAR DETERRENCE APPLIES OR DOES NOT APPLY
TO THE CONFLICT.
NAME: OCHE OGBOLE
STUDENT NUMBER: 202142055
DATE: 16/11/2023
INTRODUCTION
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which started in February 2022, has not only developed into
a localised conflict but also into a turning point that is changing the face of global security. The
war's ongoing course raises a terrifying question that will live on throughout history: How has
this geopolitical crisis affected the threat of thermonuclear war? With the help of several
critically analysed articles that break down the complexities of the conflict and the significance
of nuclear deterrence, this essay aims to investigate the complex aspects of this question.
The
battleground is decorated with the backdrop of accepted beliefs and doctrines, most notably the
idea of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence, which has historically been linked to the Cold
War, uses the real threat of catastrophic retaliation to scare off possible enemies. Nonetheless, the current conflict in Ukraine has evolved into a modern laboratory for evaluating
the effectiveness and constraints of this age-old idea. Reassessing how nuclear weapons
influence the actions of both nuclear and non-nuclear states becomes necessary as the conflict
heats up. The debate surrounding the conflict centres on the idea of nuclear deterrence, which is
closely related to major powers' possession of nuclear weapons. Russia and the other five NPT-
permitted nuclear weapon states have historically used their arsenals as instruments of strategic
influence (Sinovets and Adérito, 2022).
However, the paradoxes arising from Russia's
aggression against Ukraine cast doubt on the conventional wisdom surrounding nuclear
deterrence. The examined articles for this essay analyse the subtleties of these paradoxes,
providing insight into how the architecture of international security is changing.
The conflict in Ukraine has accelerated the conversation about military strategy, extending it into
the fields of political psychology and game theory. As the conflict puts the fundamentals of
nuclear deterrence to the test, leaders' words, gestures, and decision-making procedures are
scrutinised. The carefully examined articles highlight the nuances of the language used by
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear
warfare by invoking red lines and historical precedents out of a relentless determination.
The
idea of "aggressive actualization" or "offensive deterrence" is introduced by the conflict's
changing terrain (Nye, 2017). The limitations of traditional nuclear deterrence paradigms are
highlighted by Russia's attempts to establish anti-access and area denial capabilities along its
borders, as well as the intricate interplay of political and military strategies. The question that
emerges as non-nuclear states like Ukraine traverse this dangerous terrain is whether the threat of
thermonuclear war can be used as a deterrent or if it will become less effective in the face of
unconventional warfare tactics. In addition, the articles under analysis explore the conflict's geopolitical aftermath, which goes
beyond the battleground. They investigate the use of secondary sanctions and possible economic
deterrence as tools to prevent nuclear-armed states from escalating their conflict to
thermonuclear levels. This economic dimension adds a new dimension to the discussion of
nuclear deterrence by demonstrating how the world economies are intertwined and influence the
actions of countries facing crises.
To understand the complexities of the conflict and its
implications for the evolving threat of thermonuclear war, we will navigate the nuanced analyses
offered by the reviewed articles in the following sections of this essay. This exploration aims to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
expose the hitherto unseen dangers and obstacles that the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents to the
precarious balance of international security.
ANALYSIS
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has put the idea of nuclear deterrence under intense scrutiny
and called into question its traditional applications in modern conflicts. Nuclear deterrence,
which has historically relied on major powers having nuclear weapons, requires the legitimacy of
a devastating retaliatory threat to deter possible enemies. The efficacy of nuclear deterrence,
particularly in dissuading states lacking nuclear weapons, is becoming less certain as the conflict
progresses. A complex interplay of geopolitical, strategic, and psychological factors characterises
the nuanced and evolving phenomenon of applying nuclear deterrence in the Russia-Ukraine
conflict. Although the foundation of conventional nuclear deterrence theory is the idea that the
presence of nuclear weapons acts as a credible threat to deter aggression, the way this conflict is
playing out calls into question the ease with which these ideas can be applied.
Russia has significantly lost credibility because of its repeated use of deterrent threats, as
demonstrated by its annexation of Ukrainian territory (Cheng, 2022; Pedraza, 2015). The
annexation of Ukrainian territories is one example of how deterrent threats are frequently used,
which has led to a paradox. For nuclear weapons to be tools of non-use, they must also continue
to be credible threats. But Ukraine's ongoing testing of Russian deterrence has made the threat
less potent, prompting military actions that go beyond the bounds of conventional nuclear
deterrence. Furthermore, T.V. Paul introduced the concept of the "tradition of nuclear non-use,"
which holds that the possibility of nuclear use is undermined by several factors, including
strategic considerations and the destabilising nature of nuclear weapons (Sinovets and Adérito,
2022).
This custom appears to undermine Russia's ability to deter a non-nuclear state in the
event of a nuclear war with Ukraine. Finally, prospect theory applied to the situation
demonstrates Ukraine's unwavering response to nuclear threats. In a war, the relative value of
lost territory and sovereignty is greater than the relative value of gained territory. Ukraine's
willingness to confront Russian deterrence on the battlefield and its resistance to nuclear
coercion are both a result of this strong resolve (Cheng, 2022).
First, I examine the "game of chicken," a symbolic idea drawn from game theory in which two
players compete in a high-stakes match, each daring the other to give up preventing a disastrous
result (Prisner, 2014). Both Russian President Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky are caught
up in the conflict between their two countries. Putin wants to win at any cost, which is why he
uses nuclear threats to convey his unwavering resolve. On the other hand, Zelensky faces intense
pressure not to yield Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia. This conundrum adds a
psychological element to the battle, wherein commitment to strategic objectives, and feelings of
shame and pride in one's country, and pride play important roles. Additionally, another layer of
complexity is the "red lines" that Russia has established, especially about territories like Crimea
and Donbas. These red lines represent potential breaking points for Russia, beyond which it
might be forced to consider using nuclear weapons and break the nuclear taboo (Sinovets and
Adérito, 2022).
Given that most Russians supported the annexation of Crimea, the region is strategically and
symbolically significant to Russia. Losing such territory could force Russia to threaten nuclear
war, undermining established lines of deterrence and maintaining strategic stability. These
complexities highlight how the conflict is dynamic and ever-changing, and how traditional
deterrence models might fall short in capturing the nuances of decision-making processes. The
dynamic and ever-changing nature of the conflict makes a more nuanced understanding of the
dynamics at work necessary, as it defies simple predictions. In addition to military concerns,
leaders also must negotiate a complex environment with psychological, economic, and global
variables. The complexity of modern conflicts may prove difficult for traditional deterrence
models, which are based on Cold War paradigms, to adjust to. This emphasises the need for a
more adaptable and multifaceted approach to strategic analysis and decision-making.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has significant global ramifications and adds a degree
of unpredictability that affects many different areas. To fully comprehend these ramifications, it
is necessary to consider both the short- and long-term potential impacts on the geopolitical
environment worldwide. I shall explore some key aspects of the global implications and
unpredictability associated with the conflict. First, the conflict affects commodity prices, trade
relations, and the energy markets, upsetting global economic stability. Being a large energy
exporter, Russia has a big influence on how the world's energy markets are shaped. The conflict's
economic fallout and sanctions could influence economies much farther away from the front
lines. How quickly and profoundly these economic ripples may spread is what makes them
unpredictable. Secondly, humanitarian crises and mass migration are frequently brought on by
armed conflicts. Numerous people have already been displaced significantly because of the crisis
in Ukraine, both internally and externally. The variable aspect lies in the possibility that this
relocation may give rise to both domestic and global predicaments, such as pressure on adjacent
nations, a rise in the number of refugees, and humanitarian emergencies necessitating an
international reaction.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Furthermore, the conflict serves as an example of how conventional military tactics can
incorporate cyber capabilities and information warfare (Nye, 2017). Global ramifications of this
growing intertwining of cyber operations with geopolitical conflicts include the need for
strengthened cybersecurity defences and a reassessment of the rules guiding state conduct in
cyberspace. The unpredictability of cyber operations makes it difficult to plan effective
countermeasures and deterrent tactics. Finally, the conflict has important ramifications for
efforts related to nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. Nuclear weapons could be used in a
regional conflict, and the willingness to use nuclear rhetoric defies accepted norms. This
uncertainty raises concerns about the effectiveness of current arms control agreements and raises
the possibility that international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons will be
undermined. Conclusion In conclusion, the world now finds itself in a complex and wildly unpredictable geopolitical
situation with far-reaching effects because Russia invaded Ukraine. Several major themes
emerge as we work through the complex dynamics of this conflict, influencing the conversation
about the threat of thermonuclear war, the use of nuclear deterrence, and the ongoing crisis's
global ramifications. The conflict is shadowed by the threat of thermonuclear war, which could
shake up accepted wisdom and bring in a period of extreme unpredictability. Russia's use of
nuclear rhetoric and the possibility of unintentional escalation highlight how flimsy the current
international order is. The interplay between conventional and nuclear capabilities is elucidated
by the dynamics at play, adding a dangerous element to the geopolitical scene (Sinovets and
Adérito, 2022).
.
The idea of nuclear deterrence, which dates to the Cold War, faces many difficulties considering
the situation between Russia and Ukraine. The selective effectiveness of Russia's nuclear
deterrence strategy is the source of its paradox. Russia's nuclear threats seem less credible in
dissuading Ukraine from going nuclear, even though they are deterring US and NATO
interventions. (Ven Bruusgaard ,2020; Sinovets and Adérito, 2022). The Ukrainian
determination, the nuclear non-use tradition, and the depletion of deterrent threats highlight the
drawbacks of depending only on nuclear deterrence in a geopolitical environment that is
changing quickly. There is a call to action as we consider the effects of the Russia-Ukraine
conflict. A dedication to international norms, cooperation, and diplomacy become essential in
negotiating the complexity of today's geopolitical environment. Strengthening international
mechanisms for disarmament, peacekeeping, and the maintenance of international peace and
security is imperative considering the potential for thermonuclear war.
The international community must band together in the face of uncertainty to tackle the conflict's
underlying causes, lessen its short- and long-term effects, and defend the values that underpin a
safe and stable international order. The Russia-Ukraine conflict serves as a bellwether, putting
diplomatic frameworks to the test and pressuring countries to chart a course towards a more
stable, cooperative, and secure international future. Building a foundation for enduring peace
requires addressing the conflict's underlying causes. This calls for a thorough comprehension of
the socioeconomic, geopolitical, and historical elements that have influenced the current crisis. It
is crucial to take steps to ease underlying tensions, encourage communication, and encourage
reconciliation between the parties involved. The mobilisation of diplomatic channels, regional
powers, and international organisations is necessary to enable talks that tackle the issues causing
the conflict and establish a foundation for enduring stability. Reference
Cheng, Manqing. “The Ukraine Crisis: Causes, Conundrum and Consequences.” Journal of Social and Political Sciences
5, no. 2 (June 30, 2022). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.05.02.350.
Nye, Joseph S. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace.” International Security
41, no. 3 (January 2017): 44–71. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00266
. Pedraza, Jorge Morales. “Are Nuclear-Weapon States Not Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Ready to Renounce to the Possession of Nuclear Weapons?” Public Organization Review
17, no. 3 (December 29, 2015): 335–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0336-9
.
Prisner, Erich. Game Theory through Examples
. American Mathematical Soc., 2014.
Sinovets, Polina, and Adérito Vicente. Are nuclear weapons ineffective in deterring non-nuclear weapon states ..., December 19, 2022. https://frstrategie.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/notes/2022/202242.pdf. Ven Bruusgaard, Kristin. “Russian Nuclear Strategy and Conventional Inferiority.” Journal of Strategic Studies
44, no. 1 (October 14, 2020): 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2020.1818070
.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help