On December 18, a discussion devoted to strategic stability was held at the Valdai Club in Moscow. The moderator of the discussion, Andrey Sushentsov, pointed out the inextricable link between the topic of strategic stability and the confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. He compared the current situation with the early stages of the Cold War, when the rules and practices of interaction were not yet obvious. This state of affairs continued until the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the parties realised that they faced the prospect of mutually assured destruction and took a step back. Now the current crisis has also approached a dangerous line, and whether a settlement will be reached in the near future remains an open question.
Sergey Ryabkov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, believes that what is happening now has no analogues in the past. “The pieces on the chessboard were arranged differently. It was clearer which pieces could and could not be moved to which squares and what the consequences of this or that mistake were,” he noted. Currently, the chaos and ungovernability of international life have reached an unprecedented level, and the situation continues to deteriorate. Ryabkov believes that the main driving force behind this process is the struggle around the future model of the world order. The objectively overdue transition to multipolarity is being slowed down by the West, led by the United States, which harbours hegemonic ambitions and tramples on the principles of equal and indivisible security. In order to maintain global dominance, Washington is ready to provoke strategic risks and increase force pressure. Such geopolitical games can lead to catastrophic consequences. The actions of the United States to further escalate the Ukrainian crisis are the most striking manifestation of this agenda. The genesis of the current crisis is also connected with the harmful activity of NATO, Ryabkov emphasised. NATO’s desire for endless expansion, including the intention to absorb Ukraine militarily and politically, persists to this day and is presented as a constant in the functioning of the alliance. The idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia also remains unchanged. By and large, this precludes taking any path towards a long-term political and diplomatic settlement, the diplomat said. It is impossible to talk about strategic stability against this backdrop.
Dmitry Trenin, Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics and Leading Researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is also confident that we are bogged down in strategic instability, which will continue until a new equilibrium is established in the world. Until then, strong turbulence will persist. Speaking about the difference between the current state of affairs and the Cold War, Trenin noted that the rules of the Cold War were developed jointly and recognised by both sides, but the current rules are a code drawn up for others by the “hegemons”. At that time, a conflict similar to the one in Ukraine could not have happened, because it carries the risk of a head-on confrontation between Russia and NATO, which both sides then avoided in every possible way. Also, unlike the Cold War, now, against the backdrop of strategic instability, it is pointless to talk about arms control. The nature of deterrence is changing. “Unfortunately, the probability of the use of nuclear weapons today is much higher than during the Cold War, with the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Trenin believes. The escalation strategies being implemented by the Joe Biden administration are leading to a direct clash.
Nelson Wong, Vice Chairman of the Shanghai Centre for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, pointed out that as we approach the end of the third year of the special military operation, the international situation continues to deteriorate. The risk of another round of the arms race between the major powers and the world sliding towards World War III is increasing. “Any miscalculation, any rash step by one of the parties could provoke its outbreak,” he admitted. The outgoing Biden administration is irresponsibly pushing the boundaries of the possible, seeking to leave Donald Trump with the seething conflict. It seems that all the cards have now been dealt and everyone is waiting for the decisions of the US president-elect. The situation has been exacerbated by a number of other conflicts around the world, and in order to prevent them from escalating into a global catastrophe, leaders must prioritise peace and development and take into account each other’s security concerns. Trust and mutual respect must be restored at the negotiating table to restore strategic stability and arms control, Wong said.
Robert Legvold, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, called Trump’s future foreign policy, including with regards to the Ukrainian issue, unpredictable. As for strategic stability, according to the researcher, the concept that was honed and improved by the USSR and the USA has lost its relevance and does not correspond to the conditions of the world, in which the nuclear club includes many players. At one time, there was talk about reducing the possibility of nuclear weapons being used as a first strike weapon, but these efforts ended when the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001. At the same time, America and Russia have never agreed on strategic stability in the context of current threats. The situation is complicated by the development of nuclear strategies by Russia and the United States in terms of limited use of nuclear weapons. China is moving in the same direction, and neither side pays attention to de-escalation. Legvold also sees certain problems in connection with the concept of nuclear deterrence. Initially, the idea was that nuclear weapons were considered as a means of deterring the use of nuclear weapons. However, in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, other options are emerging that provide for a lower threshold for use.
“The concept of strategic stability has replaced the concept of political equilibrium,” noted Geoffrey Roberts, Emeritus Professor of History at University College Cork. The peace that emerged in Europe after the Congress of Vienna was precisely the result of achieving equilibrium, a kind of collective hegemony. This “European Concert” allowed for relative peace in Europe to be maintained during the 19th century, and its collapse led to the First World War. As for the strategic stability that existed during the Cold War, it can be perceived as a special case of political equilibrium. The current strategic instability is the result of a missed opportunity to create a new version of the Vienna system. To achieve such an equilibrium, the willingness of great powers to give priority to collective interests in international systems and to support security guarantees for the entire world community is required, Roberts emphasised.
