Israel's nuclear “ambiguity” as a lesson for Ukraine – opinion

Ukraine has recently been at the center of discussions about the possible development of nuclear weapons, although officials have already denied these rumors. However, the talk continues on social media. Vladimir Fesenko in an article for Glavkom, he analyzes this situation and suggests paying attention to Israel’s experience in nuclear safety issues.

Ukraine’s nuclear ambitions: a new round of discussions

This is not the first time that discussions about nuclear weapons have flared up in Ukraine. Ever since the 1990s, when the country abandoned its nuclear arsenal, there have been periodic conversations about how it would be better if Ukraine retained its nuclear potential. However, as Vladimir Fesenko notes, such discussions rarely lead to real political steps.

“All this “nuclear energy” ends up going into the air, now into social networks, without any political consequences.”

This means that, despite frequent conversations, it is not yet possible to actually return nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

US pressure

One of the key reasons why Ukraine will not be able to return nuclear weapons is the position of the United States. It was the United States that at one time insisted on Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament, and now it is categorically against Ukraine becoming a nuclear power again.

Israel's experience: how to achieve security without nuclear statements

Fesenko gives the example of Israel, which has been developing its nuclear program since the 1960s. One of the most revealing stories concerns the meeting of Israeli politician Shimon Peres with US President John Kennedy.

“Kennedy asked Perez directly: 'What are your intentions as far as nuclear weapons are concerned?'”

Peres's response became a symbol of diplomatic skill: he neither confirmed nor denied the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel, which allowed for the creation of the tactic of “nuclear ambiguity.” This strategy allowed Israel to maintain security without openly declaring the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear Ambiguity as an Effective Strategy

The policy of “nuclear ambiguity” is to neither confirm the existence of nuclear weapons nor deny them. This gave Israel an important advantage in strategically deterring adversaries. Although there have been no interstate wars between Israel and Arab countries since 1973, conflicts with Palestinian factions continue.

“Having nuclear weapons does not guarantee protection from traditional wars and conflicts, as the relationship between India and Pakistan confirms.”

This fact indicates that nuclear weapons are not a universal panacea for all types of threats, especially conventional conflicts.

Lessons for Ukraine

Fesenko makes several important conclusions for Ukraine, considering the Israeli experience. If Ukraine is truly going to develop nuclear capabilities, it must:

1. Exercise strategic caution: There is no point in publicly declaring intentions to develop nuclear weapons.
2. Apply a policy of “nuclear ambiguity”: This can be a powerful deterrent tool to avoid aggression from adversaries.
3. Start small: Before talking about nuclear weapons, it is important to establish the production of basic weapons and create a sustainable defense infrastructure.

“If you want to get nuclear weapons, don’t talk about it on every corner. And even if it appeared, you shouldn’t tell the world about it.”

Table: Lessons from Israeli nuclear strategy for Ukraine

Conclusion

Vladimir Fesenko's article emphasizes that any discussion about nuclear weapons must be conducted with great caution. Israel's experience shows how an effective deterrence strategy can be created without overt statements. Ukraine should pay attention to these lessons and build a strong defense base before developing ambitions.

Leave a comment↓