Opinion | Ukrainians' interest is at stake

By Junius Ho and Kacee Ting

Recently, Russian President Putin has raised the specter of a nuclear attack on Ukraine to deter the West from providing more sophisticated weapons to Ukraine to attack Russian newly annexed territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. From the perspectives of optimists, Putin is unlikely- and hopefully not foolish enough- to touch off a horrible nuclear holocaust. But US President Biden disagrees. Many pessimists argue that there is little wiggle room to escape from the nuclear nightmare because the inability of Russian armies to repel the recent Ukrainian offensive in eastern Ukraine will threaten the security of the newly annexed territories and the rule of Putin.

Following the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions by Russia, the nuclear threat has increased because Putin could cast any attack on these territories as an attack on Russia itself. The Soviet Union pledged not to be the first to use nuclear weapons in 1982. But such a pledge was dropped in 1993 by Russia. The no-first-use pledge was abandoned because the capacity of Russian conventional forces was on a downward spiral in the early 1990s. Russia's existing nuclear doctrine allows for a nuclear attack after the aggression against the Russian Federation with conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

According to Biden, the threat from Putin was real because his military was underperforming on the battlefield. Under these difficult circumstances, Putin might use the threat of tactical nuclear weapons to force Ukraine and its external supporters to negotiate with Russia. But the nuclear threat has opened a Pandora's Box and added new complexity to the extremely complicated situation in Ukraine. In the short term, the prospects for diplomacy are dim. For the sake of peace, intra-regional and extra-regional powers could still do something to defuse the tense situation.

Although the Ukrainian army has gained a temporary upper hand on the battlefield, Ukraine should not gamble for a full recovery of the annexed territories and Crimea by merely relying on military means. Even if the US is determined to use tactical nuclear weapons to retaliate against the Russian nuclear attack, Ukraine will remain the main receiving end of the tragic nuclear exchanges. It is feared that Ukrainians and other Europeans living near the battlefield will be exposed to radiation, irrespective of the high death rates brought about by the nuclear attack. Ionizing radiation in certain conditions can cause damage to living organisms, causing cancer or genetic damage.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should avoid escalating the conflict with Russia to the level of Armageddon. Instead of rebuilding Ukraine on the ashes of the nuclear holocaust, Zelensky should think first and foremost about preventing the catastrophe by cutting down its offensive in eastern and southern Ukraine. Giving the go-ahead for an exchange of prisoners of war is strongly recommended. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated in accordance with Article 13 of the Geneva Convention III of 1949.

Like Ukraine, the US and its NATO allies should step back from the nuclear cliff. As Biden has correctly pointed out, there is no such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon. Though the former CIA chief David Howell Petraeus said that if Moscow used nuclear weapons, the US and its NATO allies would destroy Russian troops and equipment in Ukraine and sink its entire Black Sea fleet, we should respond to his bluff with a pinch of salt.

Any belief that the US could easily win an offshore nuclear war in Ukraine without much sacrifice is a mixture of self-deception and hypocrisy. To retaliate against the American nuclear attack, Russia may be forced to use more powerful and destructive strategic nuclear weapons to attack major American cities. This is mutually assured destruction. Any nuclear bluff by the US will simply lead to miscalculation and add to the insecurity of Russia, triggering an escalation of countermeasures that sustain and deepen the vicious cycle.

Rather than forcing Russia to take escalatory countermeasures, the US should take confidence-building measures to defuse the situation. One effective confidence-building measure is for the US to cut back its security assistance package to Ukraine. Furthermore, the US and its NATO allies may consider pledging no first use of nuclear weapons, even unilaterally, against Russia which has no option but to rely on its nuclear weapons more than ever. A lifting of some economic sanctions against Russia may also cool down the political temperature between the US and Russia.

Concerning Sino-Russian relations, some observers remind us that China has kept Russia at arm's length since the war broke out in February. Even if China is providing only rhetorical support for Russia, the West still sees Beijing as identifying with a 'direct challenger' to the liberal global order. To confirm its commitment to peace and the liberal global order, China claims it wants a peaceful end to the conflict in Ukraine. Perhaps China may consider mediating the conflict between Russia and Ukraine because it seems to be acceptable to both warring parties.

But the present atmosphere is unfavorable for any mediation efforts. Ukraine will not back down as long as it receives large-scale military support from the US and its allies. There is no doubt that the war has greatly strengthened the unity of NATO under American leadership. Ukraine may inflate the long-term reliability of its external support. In fact, different European nations have different perceptions of Russian threat. Putin's nuclear bluff and the energy crisis may cast a long and lasting shadow on NATO unity. As Stephen Walt wrote in Foreign Policy in April 2022, the Ukrainian war signals the end of the brief 'unipolar moment' (1993-2020) when the US was the world's sole genuine superpower and because it heralds a return to patterns of world politics that were temporarily suppressed during the short era of unchallenged US primacy.

Nevertheless, in a situation of great uncertainty, Ukraine should be persuaded to avoid the horrible and tragic devastation brought about by a Russian nuclear attack. Put simply, it shall not gamble for a temporary gain but shall gamble to avoid a sure loss arising from long-term animosity with Russia. At the moment, Ukraine, the US and its allies should exercise restraints in order not to push the situation over the nuclear brink.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Junius Ho Kwan-yiu is a Legislative Council member and a solicitor.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, part-time researcher at Shenzhen University Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law Research Center, and co-founder of the Together We Can and Hong Kong Coalition.