If This Happens…

On 11 May 1995, the countries that were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) once again came together to decide that the treaty should remain effective indefinitely. The NPT had originally been initiated in 1970 with a 25-year term. Therefore, the review conference held in 1995 had two choices: either to extend the treaty for a limited time or to make it indefinite. Wisely, the NPT signatories opted for an indefinite extension, ensuring a strong foundation for efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. Twenty-five years later, the wisdom of this decision was celebrated, reaffirming that even fifty years on, the treaty remains a credible guarantee for nuclear non-proliferation, which promotes global cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, arms control, and disarmament efforts.

As of August 2016, 191 states had become parties to the treaty. North Korea joined in 1985 but never fully complied with its terms and, after conducting nuclear tests in 2003, announced its withdrawal from the treaty. During the 2015 UN NPT Review Conference, the UK’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Joyce Ainlay, expressed concern over the slow pace of global disarmament, despite the significant reduction in warheads since the Cold War. She acknowledged the awareness of nuclear weapons’ humanitarian impacts in recent years but affirmed that the UK, along with Norway and the US, would continue its verification work.

On 23 July 2024, as preparations were underway for the 11th NPT Review Conference in Geneva, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that the treaty remains the cornerstone of international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and an essential pillar of the global governance system for peace and development. As a signatory, China has consistently upheld the treaty’s objectives, fulfilling its obligations and advocating for balanced progress across the three pillars: nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Despite these positive efforts, why has this treaty ultimately failed, and how might it, heaven forbid, one day ignite the dry and dangerous fuel of global conflict, potentially plunging the world into the Stone Age? The fears expressed at the start of the Ukraine war have proved accurate: the US is now poised to unilaterally withdraw from a key Cold War-era nuclear arms control agreement. The treaty in question, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, was signed in 1987 by US President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev to halt the arms race of medium-range nuclear weapons. It was hailed by global experts as a milestone in arms control. However, as the situation in Ukraine has evolved, the US accused Russia of violating the treaty by deploying a cruise missile, signaling a shift in American policy. While Russia denied these allegations, former US President Trump confirmed during a press briefing in Nevada that “we are going to terminate the treaty and withdraw from it.” On 13 June 2022, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the very next day, Russia responded by declaring it would no longer adhere to the START II arms control agreement.

Russia justified its decision to abandon the INF Treaty, saying that Washington had suspended the agreement over alleged Russian violations regarding its new cruise missile tests. In response, President Putin declared his intent to withdraw Russia from Cold War-era nuclear arms control treaties, which were aimed at preventing nuclear war. He argued that China’s advancements in missile technology, despite not being a signatory to the treaty, had reduced its importance due to emerging military threats. Previously, Russia had denied US claims of new missile tests, instead accusing the US of violating the treaty by installing missile defense systems in Eastern European member states.

Putin stated that Moscow will now begin working on the development of new missiles and upgrading existing systems. However, he emphasised that until the United States makes a definitive decision, Russia will not deploy any weapons. In response to the U.S. actions, Putin declared that Russia is also suspending the treaty, just as the U.S. has done. It should be noted that the INF Treaty focused on land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres. Analysts have warned that the end of missile control treaties and the installation of missile defence systems in Europe could pose a serious threat to EU countries. The co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations has suggested that, in the event of the INF Treaty’s demise, Europe could face threats from Russian ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of 1,500 kilometres.

Before Russia’s withdrawal from the treaty, China had attempted to avoid further confrontation. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Congress allocated funds to the Pentagon for research and development of new missiles. However, U.S. officials stressed that the country was not in a position to immediately deploy medium-range missiles in Europe.

The U.S. believes that despite several rounds of negotiations, the failure to reach an agreement led it to suspend the treaty, prompting Russia to also withdraw from the INF Treaty, which had been signed during the Cold War. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, had been pushing for the U.S. to abandon the treaty, while the U.S. Department of Defense had opposed such a move.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov, stated that the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty has dealt a significant blow to global efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a result, Russia now finds it necessary to develop ground-based launch systems and hypersonic ground-based intermediate-range missiles for its active missile programme, in which it has now become self-sufficient.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a global disarmament agreement, was signed between Russia and the U.S. in 1991 and came into force in 1994. The aim of this treaty was to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as well as weapons of mass destruction, between the two then-global superpowers. Representatives from the U.S. and Russia had held talks in Beijing to salvage the INF Treaty, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The U.S. has warned that if Russia does not dismantle the missiles it has deployed in Europe in violation of the treaty, it will withdraw from the INF immediately. Moscow, however, rejected the U.S. demand, stating that its ‘Novator 9M729’ missiles were deployed in compliance with the treaty’s terms and conditions.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has issued a stern warning, stating that an Israeli attack on Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities would be a “serious provocation.” In response to a potential Israeli attack, the Iranian parliament has begun deliberations on withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, Iran has already conveyed a message to the U.S. through Qatar, indicating that any Israeli strike will be met with an unconventional response. If this happens…!