The following interview by Alix L’hospital for “L’Express” with Andreas Umland reflects on his recent commentary “Will Smaller Powers Obtain WMDs?” in “World Affairs” (vol. 188, no. 4, 2025). A slightly revised version of the interview was earlier published in French here.
L’Express: You express concern that the international legal and political order that has prevailed since 1945 is increasingly eroding.
Andreas Umland: Yes, but that is not to say that the order that has existed until now was characterized by an absence of war, invasion, or genocide. What one can only say is that from 1945 until recently, the world had not witnessed, as a rule, unprovoked expansionist wars and unilateral territorial annexations, as had been common before 1945. Moreover, while genocides have taken place since 1945, they were mostly perpetrated within and not between states.
That distinguished the so-called international “liberal” or “rules-based” order until recently – although it was actually only partially liberal and based on rules. Now the situation is changing. Since 2014, Russia has been violating these two unspoken taboos – the rarity of openly expansionist war and genocide between states – through its policy in Ukraine. Moscow is no longer content with creating “people’s republics” as the Soviet Union had been in its days. Russia explicitly annexed Crimea in 2014, and four Ukrainian mainland regions in 2022. Furthermore, many historians, political scientists, and lawyers now agree that the Russian war in Ukraine includes a form of genocide.
By attacking another UN member state, Ukraine, in order to expand Russia’s territory, Vladimir Putin has dealt a major blow to the order on which our world has been based for more than half a century. This should be a cause for concern: the consequences of this erosion are likely to manifest themselves not only in the behavior of great powers, but also – and perhaps even more so – in that of small and medium-sized states.
What do you mean?
Given that we are now in a new situation, where one of the major powers of the post-1945 era is officially expanding its territory at the expense of a smaller power, this may change everyone’s view of the world order.
Firstly, many observers have already pointed out that other larger powers may take Russia’s behavior as a model and attempt to do something similar. The US under Donald Trump seems to have already done so when threatening to annex Greenland and Canada. Venezuela has made known its ambition to extend its territory into Guyana.
But if Russia’s behavior can serve as a model for other great powers, we often forget that Ukraine’s fate also serves as a warning for small and medium-sized powers. They see Russia advancing into Ukraine, committing genocide, torturing prisoners, deporting children, annexing territories, and so on – and that the international measures taken to contain, counter and punish Moscow’s behavior are limited.
Admittedly, there are sanctions against Russia as well as arms deliveries and financial aid for Ukraine. But there is no direct response, as there was after Iraq had annexed Kuwait in 1990, and the Kuwaiti state was liberated and restored in 1991 by an international military coalition. In other words, the militarily weaker countries on the geopolitical chessboard may now come to the conclusion that they can no longer count on international law, solidarity, or organizations. They may conclude that they will have themselves to take care of their national security more than before.
In the worst case, we may witness of an era of unprecedented proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
What would that entail?
Some will manage to join military alliances that can offer them protection or even form new alliances with certain larger powers. But others will not be able to do so. The latter might thus consider acquiring weapons of mass destruction [WMSs]: nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons. Anything may come to look acceptable to protect oneself.
A fundamental difference with the pre-1945 period, i.e. before the emergence of the rules-based order, was that there were no weapons of mass destruction. (As for the already existing chemical weapons, they were not as deadly as those that appeared in the second half of the 20th century.)
Today, weapons of mass destruction exist. Since 2014, the rule of unilateral immovability of borders of peaceful UN member countries that protected small countries, however, seems no longer fully in place. There is now a possibility that smaller powers which fear larger neighbors will reassess their national security priorities. Once some countries decide to leave the non-proliferation conventions and go nuclear, chemical and/or biological, this will trigger others to do the same. In the worst case, we may witness of an era of unprecedented proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), in force since 1970, is still the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation in the world. Could this be a sufficient deterrent to prevent such an escalation?
Ukraine is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a so-called non-nuclear-weapon state. This should have protected it from being attacked by a state that officially possesses nuclear weapons under the NPT, and is also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. For many small and medium-sized countries, it may look now as if the NPT is made to allow more powerful countries to expand their territory at the expense of smaller powers. Russia’s expansionist war undermines the logic and legitimacy of the NPT. As a result, small countries may no longer respect the non-proliferation regime because they do not want to make the same “mistake” as Ukraine – namely, to naively trust in the promises of international order, rules, law, organizations and solidarity that underpin the post-1945 world.
Are there signs that such a process of nuclear proliferation is already underway?
To my knowledge, no concrete measures have been taken in this direction to date. But it is likely that experts, diplomats, and even politicians from potentially insecure countries are already thinking about how to deter potentially revisionist neighbors that are learning from Russia.
The question for them may today be: What will eventually happen to Ukraine in the near future? Will its territorial integrity be restored? How will international partners and organizations behave vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia? If Kyiv emerges from this war having liberated its currently occupied territories, and Russia is simultaneously subject to sanctions and legal proceedings, the post-1945 international order can be saved. But if this will not be the case, the worldwide non-proliferation conventions on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons will lose their appeal.
The small and medium-sized countries you mention would still need to have the means to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
The already nuclear-armed states North Korea and Pakistan are poorer per capita than Ukraine, and North Korea’s GDP is smaller than Ukraine’s. And yet, this has not prevented them from acquiring nuclear weapons – admittedly with foreign assistance, mainly from Russia and China.
Still, the fact remains that if as poor countries, such as North Korea or Pakistan, have managed to acquire nuclear arsenals, it is likely that other countries, most of which are richer than them, can also succeed, if they decide to go nuclear. And if a country is unable to build or obtain nuclear warheads, it may still be possible to acquire or build, for the purpose of deterring larger powers, chemical or biological weapons – even if their military use is a more complicated issue than the explosion of a nuclear warhead.
Is there no military alliance capable of adequately protecting these small countries before they consider acquiring weapons of mass destruction?
To date, in my opinion, there is only one international alliance capable of protecting its members well: NATO. The problem is, however, that it is not easy to join this and other potent military alliances. Ukraine and Georgia, which have been trying to join NATO for years and even obtained a membership perspective in 2008, know this all too well: They have made no real progress on this issue in the last 17 years, and instead lost their territorial integrity to Russia.
With other military alliances, it may also not be that easy to join them. And, in any case, the protection they can offer is less formidable than that provided by NATO. For many, therefore, so-called “external balancing” may not be a satisfactory solution.
Should we expect most of the countries attempting to acquire nuclear weapons to be located around Ukraine?
No. It will not necessarily be the countries geographically close to Ukraine that are primarily concerned. In fact, many of these countries, such as Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Poland, are members of NATO and the European Union. They therefore enjoy a much better international embeddedness than most other countries of the world. Admittedly, they share a border with Ukraine, but they live on almost another planet in terms of security guarantees.
As for Turkey, it is also a member of NATO. Armenia is still officially an ally of Russia, and Georgia is currently succumbing to Moscow’s influence. Azerbaijan has a mutual aid pact with Turkey. So, I don’t think this problem concerns in the first instance countries close to Ukraine, but rather countries on different continents, from Asia to Africa to Latin America.
Couldn’t the United States and China intervene to prevent such proliferation?
A worldwide proliferation of WMDs can only be prevented by restoring confidence in elementary international order, i.e., the immovability of borders, inadmissibility of interstate genocide, and permanence of territorial integrity. If such powers as the US and China learn that a country is attempting to manufacture or obtain nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, there may indeed be a reaction from them – for example, economic sanctions or even a military intervention to prevent it. The problem is that some smaller power may still refuse to give in and try – perhaps, secretly – to obtain WMDs, if they come to the conclusion that obtaining such weapons is the only means they have to avoid suffering the same fate as Ukraine.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.