Indirect nuclear threats

By choosing NATO as the instrument of its policy and bypassing the United Nations, the West excluded Russia from an area in which it has historical, ethnic, religious and geographical interests.

Already angered by the expansion of NATO eastwards to include the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and by United States’ threats to wreck the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Russia reacted by announcing that it would not ratify the Second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 2).

This in turn stops any progress towards a START 3 treaty. So a major casualty of NATO’s bombing of Kosova/Serbia has been the East/West nuclear disarmament process.

Russia then threatened both to re-target its strategic (long-range) nuclear missiles on the NATO countries – including Britain – taking part in the bombing of Serbia/Kosova, and to move tactical (short-range) nuclear weapons westwards into Belarus.

These weapons were originally withdrawn at the end of the Cold War, following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the reunification of Germany and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. NATO ground-based tactical nuclear weapons were removed at the same time. These withdrawals were not covered by any treaty. Short range weapons had simply become militarily useless since they no longer had the range to reach the opposition.

However with the eastward expansion of NATO, this is no longer the case. Although many have been scrapped, Russia still has over a thousand tactical nuclear weapons available.

Other threats included Russia pulling out of the Y2K millennium bug committee recently set up with the US. This would present a real danger since the chances of the poorly-maintained Russian early warning radar system mistakenly announcing an incoming missile strike are too high for comfort.

As with many Russian statements, there has been a considerable degree of confusion: exactly who said what, what was meant and just how seriously should any particular threat be taken.

What is clear is that the Russian leadership – who are basically pro-Western unlike some of the violently nationalistic politicians behind them – has been deeply angered by being ignored. President Yeltsin has stated: "The stakes are very high now. Either international law and order will be restored or the world will be ruled by violent chaos."

Rather late in the day, the US, Britain and NATO show signs of realising that a mistake has been made and that Russia has to be part of the solution. But damage has been done. It is not sensible politics to needlessly anger a major nuclear power – especially one that is in a state of social and economic chaos. Nuclear issues, direct and indirect, are too closely involved in the NATO Balkan campaign for comfort.