HOME  DISINFORMATION  PLUNDER
Prytulak   InfoUkes Posting   14-Oct-1997   Re: Denuclearization of Ukraine (my final clarification)
Other comments on Ukrainian nuclear disarmament can be found in the Lubomyr Prytulak InfoUkes postings of 2Oct97, 12Oct97, and 15Oct97, and as well in the Amitav Ghosh selections of 26Oct98.
Date:  Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:30:23 -0700
To:  [email protected]
From:  Lubomyr Prytulak
Subject:  Re: Denuclearization of Ukraine (my final clarification)
In reply to several comments, I offer the following clarification of my position concerning Ukrainian unilateral nuclear disarmament.

(1) Ukraine is not today the object of respect for having denuclearized.  Ukraine is the object of contempt.  This contempt is reflected in the low level of support that Ukraine receives and the calumny which is heaped upon its head by the media.  Both the low level of support and the calumny are measureable and demonstrable.  What does one measure to arrive at the conclusion that Ukraine is the object of respect?

In contrast, every nuclear power is truly the object of respect � even nuclear powers that have a history of brutality, such as China.  Even ruthless and despotic and totalitarian and paranoid North Korea, which merely threatens to develop a nuclear capability, is fawned over and offered big presents in a way which Ukraine might envy.

(2) Nuclear powers today show a marked reluctance to employ their nuclear weapons.  The US refused to do so in Viet Nam despite the heavy loss of American lives, and despite the ultimate humiliation of defeat.  Russia refused to do so first in Afghanistan, and later in Chechnya � here similarly despite the heavy loss of Soviet lives, and despite the ultimate humiliation of defeat.  From these three cases, I conclude that the possibility that anyone will employ nuclear weapons against Ukraine is highly remote and need not enter into calculations of what is plausible.

(3) Had North Viet Nam possessed two dozen nuclear weapons, the United States would not have engaged militarily in either North or South Viet Nam.  This is true despite the fact that North Viet Nam did not possess ICBMs and probably not any long-range bombers � and was in fact a backward, third-world country.  The reason that the US would have refrained from any military action in either Viet Nam is that the US would have had no way of guaranteeing that North Viet Nam could never detonate a nuclear weapon in, say, New York city.  North Viet Nam could have attempted to do so using a large number of paths.  It could have used a small plane flying underneath American radar.  It could have used a pleasure boat, or a fishing boat, sailing up the Hudson River.  It could have smuggled the bomb in to the US in some shipment from some third country.  It could have used drug runners who regularly bribe American customs officials to allow their trucks to cross into the United States without inspection.  Who knows what they could have used � but the US would have realized that one of these many methods might have succeeded, and that the loss of New York city would not have been worth any gain that might have come from US military intervantion in either Viet Nam.  If there was any chance whatever of losing New York city, then the US would have refrained from military involvement against North Viet Nam.

Similarly, if the side in the Afghanistan war that Russia opposed had had two dozen nuclear weapons, then Russia would never have engaged militarily in Afghanisitan.  And if Chechnya had had two dozen nuclear weapons, Russia would never have attacked Chechnya.  A nuclear bomb can be delivered in a suitcase.  It can be hidden under a shipment of watermelons.  It can enter Russia through a mountain pass on mule-back.  Thus if there was the slightest chance of losing Moscow � and there would have been some such slight chance � then Russia would never have engaged in a conventional attack against either Afghanistan or Chechnya.

(4) Analogously, if Ukraine possessed two dozen nuclear weapons, this would give it near-absolute protection against a military attack by conventional forces.  This is because Ukraine would have a large number of ways of delivering a single nuclear weapon to the capital city of the agressor.  That doing so would be unwise, or foolish, or insane is irrelevant � a country under attack might readily become emotional and irrational, and might respond with just such a surprising escalation.  No one would risk invading a country that possessed two dozen nuclear weapons.  With two dozen nuclear weapons � even without ICBMs, even without a single long-range bomber � Ukraine would have possessed a degree of security that it does not possess today, and that it will not possess into the foreseeable future.

(5) The world does not isolate, or hold in contempt, or place an embargo against any nuclear power.  This is because isolation and contempt and embargo increase the chances that the target will become resentful and unstable.  The world reacts to every nuclear power with sincere and serious attempts at economic development and modernization.  That is why Russia is being developed and modernized today and Ukraine is not.  That is the chief reason why Russia agitated for the denuclearization of Ukraine.  That is the chief reason for Ukraine to have held on to some of its tactical nuclear weapons � not to win some implausible war, but to win respect and serious assistance.  Ukrainian denuclearization was the single biggest mistake that it made following independence.  Diaspora bleeding-heart liberals who advocated unilateral Ukrainian disarmament struck a grave blow at the viability of the Ukrainian state.

(6) The only way for Ukraine to get anything out of its mistake is to hold itself out to the world as an example of the mistreatment that results from unilateral nuclear disarmament.  As the Ukrainian example would act to deter any other nations from disarming, and as it would encourage still other nations � like North Korea and Iran � to continue on their paths of acquiring nuclear weapons, then the West, particularly the US, might see the necessity of beginning for the first time to take serious steps toward the economic development and modernization of Ukraine.  The West and the US would have to do this in order to demonstrate that denuclearization brought reward and not punishment.  The gangsters presently running Ukraine are too busy salting away their plunder in Swiss banks to recognize this truth and to act on it � whether Ukraine remains viable or goes under, they will live in luxury, so what do they care?

The very first step toward genuinely assisting Ukraine � and a step that by itself might be sufficient � should be for the West � in which I include Israel � to stop plundering Ukraine, and in fact to reverse the plundering that has already taken place.

Lubomyr Prytulak

HOME  DISINFORMATION  PLUNDER