It takes two to tango, but a great many to form an orchestra to stage an exceptional performance of a world in harmony. If peace and development is what we all aspire for as humans, now is the time to lay down arms, to sit down and talk, Nelson Wong writes.
Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine is approaching the end of its third year and the situation seems to be proceeding from bad to worse. Following Ukraine’s strikes with long-range weapons provided by the United States and the United Kingdom, the Russian army introduced its new Oreshnik missile, which struck Ukrainian military facilities on November 21.
The growing tensions between Russia and the US-led NATO over the conflict in Ukraine, particularly with the renewal of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between Russia and the US still being in limbo, increases the risk of another round of the arms race among the big powers. When strategic stability is absent, the likelihood of the world sliding into a Third World War becomes greater.
While some people have perhaps wishfully suggested that the current escalation of the conflict in Ukraine could be a last minute push by both sides to gain more ground and bargaining power, eventually leading to both sides sitting down at the negotiation table to end the conflict, they fail to realise that this is exactly the most delicate and dangerous moment. Betting on luck or relying on the sensible decisions of governments, when some of them are already in the midst of a military conflict, is a risky assumption. Any miscalculation or reckless move by either side of the conflict in Ukraine risks triggering the outbreak of a full-blown war in Europe, if not a major world war.
But before discussing how, and what it takes to de-escalate the tensions on the battlefields in Ukraine and restore strategic stability amid a worldwide context, let us first look at what has actually happened in connection with the conflict in Ukraine over the past few months or weeks as well as their possible implications:
The outgoing Biden administration, by supplying increasingly sophisticated weapons to the Ukrainian army, particularly along with the supply of long-range missiles by the US and the UK, and now authorising their use against Russia, has been recklessly pushing the envelope further. This is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible act on the part of Biden, to have purposefully left a “hot potato” for Trump to handle at the outset.
Few NATO countries in Europe have voiced their worries and disagreement regarding Biden’s decision, fearing that when Donald Trump returns to the White House in mid-January, he might cut his country’s further supply of weapons and financial aide to Ukraine. Most importantly, the Europeans are perhaps more scared that the US might substantially reduce its commitment to NATO.
Russia’s recent strike on Ukraine’s military facilities using its new Oreshnik missile has demonstrated the country’s resolve and capability, but in general is still part of its deterrence effort. President Putin’s subsequent statement that “the question of whether to further deploy medium- and short-range missiles will be decided by us and depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites” is understood to be Russia’s further warning to its opponent in this conflict rather than anything else.
Attention must also be drawn to the latest meeting in Berlin that took place on December 12 and the subsequent release of the joint declaration by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom as well as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This has reiterated their support for Ukraine to win the war against Russia. However, what’s worth notice is the absence of American participation in this meeting and, throughout the entire declaration, the United States was not mentioned at all as being the major and most crucial player in Euro-Atlantic integration and NATO.
Against the backdrop of this ongoing standoff between the conflicting sides, it seems that all cards have now been placed on the table by the parties, and by calling their bluff, all seem to be waiting for the next US president. But common sense suggests that nothing is as it seems. Given that President-elect Donald Trump is known for his negotiating ability and the somewhat unconventional but strong team of high officials in his next administration who have been made public, we have reasons to believe that proper and active talks have already begun or are underway to hopefully bring the conflict to an end soon.
Rather than guessing on whose terms the peace talks will take place, it is more sensible for us to call for the wisdom and charisma of the outstanding statesmen and diplomats of our time to find a solution to end the conflict, if all parties agree that further loss of life on either side is not acceptable. At a time when the war in Gaza is still ongoing, and given what has just happened in Syria, and that tensions across the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea are also on the rise, the leaders of all major powers are now pressured to make critical decisions, to choose between war and peace.
That brings us to the subject of how to regain our strategic stability, not only in Europe but also in a worldwide context. It is a complicated issue, but must still be addressed and attended to by all stakeholders. The unfortunate reality is that along with the United States’ backing out of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) in 2001, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) in 2019, and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2021, the former arms control mechanism to ensure strategic stability has disappeared. With the danger of the major powers entering into a new wave of the arms race now becoming apparent, the whole world is exposed to the threat of deadly nuclear weapons.
During the course of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia has been pushed to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, hoping that NATO would back off and stop its expansion to Russia’s doorstep. Leaders of many Western countries have ignored Russia’s repeated warning to the extent that they seem to have completely forgotten about the power of the lethal weapon, of which Russia occupies one of the biggest arsenals of our time. Now that Russia has officially announced its readiness to revise its nuclear doctrines to allow itself to make pre-emptive strikes, the world has once again arrived at the edge of a major catastrophic disaster for humanity, and the situation is perhaps much more acute than that at the beginning of the Cold War.
Many officials in the current and previous US administrations have argued that the main reasons for the US backing out of those arms control treaties was so that the United States could contain and counter the joint threat imposed by Russia and China. However, this is contradictory to conventional wisdom since by comparison, China’s arsenal is much smaller and is there for defensive purposes only; in particular, China has always stated that it will not use nuclear weapons unless it is hit first. Also, let’s not forget that apart from the “Big Five” of the UN Security Council, many other countries around the world are now already in possession of nuclear weapons and hence any meaningful discussions on arms control, on nuclear non-proliferation, and above all, on nuclear deterrence should include the participation of not just a limited few, but all parties involved.
It takes two to tango, but a great many to form an orchestra to stage an exceptional performance of a world in harmony. If peace and development is what we all aspire for as humans, now is the time to lay down arms, to sit down and talk. But still, trust and mutual respect are the first step we must all try to take to regain strategic stability.