By: Dr. Adnan Bouzan

Amid the rapidly evolving events on the international stage, the consequences of the major powers' fluctuating policies are becoming increasingly evident. These powers prioritize strategic interests above all else, even at the expense of global stability. One of the most striking examples of this reality is the Russian war on Ukraine, which would not have occurred had it not been for the contradictory Western policies that paved the way for Moscow to take this bold step.

When Ukraine agreed in 1994 to relinquish its nuclear arsenal—the third-largest in the world at the time—it was not a reckless decision nor a voluntary act of disarmament. Rather, it was a strategic choice made by Kyiv based on international guarantees and assurances provided by the United States and the United Kingdom under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Washington and London, along with Moscow, pledged to guarantee Ukraine’s security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity in exchange for its surrender of the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union. Although this agreement was not a binding defense treaty, it carried a clear moral and political commitment to prevent any external aggression against Ukraine.

However, subsequent events proved that these assurances were nothing more than empty promises that quickly evaporated in the face of shifting political interests. Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom took decisive action beyond imposing economic sanctions, which were insufficient to deter Moscow. This Western inaction set a dangerous precedent, encouraging Russia to expand its intervention in Ukraine, as it faced no real deterrent to curb its expansionist policies.

One of Kyiv's grave miscalculations was its reliance on these international guarantees without fully considering the ever-changing nature of global alliances and interests. Had Ukraine retained its nuclear arsenal, Russia would not have dared to launch any military action against it. Nuclear deterrence would have been a crucial factor in preventing any Russian military adventurism, as is the case with other nuclear-armed states that enjoy immunity from foreign aggression. However, after abandoning this powerful deterrent, Ukraine became vulnerable to military threats, especially in the absence of concrete security guarantees from the West.

The current U.S. stance on the war in Ukraine reflects a glaring contradiction in Washington’s foreign policy. Former President Donald Trump, who showed a clear inclination to reduce America’s international commitments early in his second term, did not conceal his isolationist tendencies, which cast doubt on the necessity of continued Western support for Kyiv. Although successive U.S. administrations have provided military aid to Ukraine, this assistance has remained limited and has not reached a level capable of altering the strategic balance on the ground. This hesitation by the West has led Moscow to perceive an opportunity to further its expansionist ambitions.

What is happening today in Ukraine is a direct consequence of the West’s betrayal of its commitments. The United States and the United Kingdom failed to honor their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum, sending the wrong signal to Russia that the use of force would not be met with a firm response. Moreover, this situation has conveyed a concerning message to other nations worldwide: international assurances cannot be relied upon, and possessing nuclear weapons remains the most effective means of ensuring national security in a world governed by power rather than international law.

In light of this, it is evident that the Russian war on Ukraine would not have unfolded so easily without implicit Western complicity in failing to uphold their promises. This scenario also serves as a historical lesson on the critical importance of maintaining deterrent capabilities to safeguard national sovereignty, particularly in an international environment characterized by uncertainty and distrust. Ultimately, what has happened to Ukraine stands as a significant lesson for other nations that may one day find themselves facing similar challenges without any guarantees of their security and survival.

Add comment