There's no reason to assume that Western allies would "turn a blind eye" to or help Ukraine acquire materials to build nuclear bombs. They would have an incentive to publicly punish Ukraine for doing so, or the global non-proliferation mechanism is damaged. If Ukraine could get away with it, why not others? Do we want a world in which every medium sized country has nuclear weapons? This isn't a rhetorical question.
I certainly wouldn't mind if Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics had nuclear weapons, maybe a shared programme in the future. Non-proliferation is broken as it is - look at Belarus and Iran.
We are already in the world you described. When Russia, US, UK ignored an agreement with no more or no less power than any other agreement... NPT died.
The problem is that for Russia, a few nuclear devices are not a threat or even a deterrent. The current regime would easily sacrifice a million people.
I also don't see how Ukraine could actually use the bomb as "last ditch resort". Say Russian troops are about to encircle Kyiv and are entering its suburbs. Where do you drop the bomb? On Bucha?
Or do you drop it on eg Belgorod, giving Russia a justification to nuke Kharkiv in exchange? Remember that you're going to run out of nukes first.
All the arguments why the West and Ukraine should not be deterred by Putin's nuclear threats apply in reverse.
If "allies" drive Ukraine to use nukes - then they are not allies anymore.
And of course Ukraine can survive. It had survived long enough already. It had existed as a state centuries before "The West" came to be. No practical reason for it to suddenly cease to exist.
If the west soldier will be near Moscow i will be very deterred that Putin will use nukes. Nukes are last step of defence, not the first one and absolutly not for advance. So if UA will have nukes and russia soldiers will be by Kyjiv then...
Then Ukraine nukes Kyiv suburbs? And irradiates their own people?
There's another type of WMD Ukraine could be acquiring right now: chemical weapons like sarin. I'm sure they have the know-how. Somehow they neither do it, nor do they hint about doing it. For similar reasons why going nuclear is not a sensible option for them: because the cost of actually making them, say nothing about using them, would be too expensive to bear.
Oh, but the logic goes: if Russia would know that Ukraine will nuke Moscow if Russian troops would be near Kiyv, then no Russian troops would ever be near Kiyv! It's obvious!
There is 1 perfect target. Moscow Kremel. Putin is afraiding about his life and possible attack on Kremel or another Putin s residence can be a very good threat. So important is not to target milions of people in russia but important ones.
Putin doesn't want to use nukes, and nukes are enough precise to kill zelensky or putin, but together with many others. So that's why Putin didn;t use it and thats'why UA will use only as last step.
However, the presence of nuclear weapons in Ukraine may stimulate the West to increase support. Because the West fears nuclear weapons more than Russia.
Yes, nukes could be useful as a tool to threaten the West, but not Russia. But that would redefine the relationship between Ukraine and the West considerably. It slid definitely scupper any chance of Ukraine joining the EU, for one.
I believe, faced with a fait accompli, the West would have to shrug it off, there would have to be some face saving reactions, but nothing meaningful, a parking ticket instead of a long jail sentence...
They could easily explain this to their electorate, in terms anyone can understand, and they may want a nuclear armed Ukraine in the club, rather than as a resentful outsider.
They wouldn't like it, but there wouldn't be much they could realistically do to force a second Budapest Memorandum after confirming the first one was worthless.
I suspect some countries would be relieved (and horrified in equal measure), that another nuclear counter to Russia appears, we have to face the reality that we may no longer be protected by the US nuclear umbrella.
The EU has a nuclear armed member already, Orban/Fico may not be around forever to place roadblocks. Besides, if you're about to be annihilated you don't care about EU membership.
I've worried about nuclear proliferation due to the invasion for three years, I think now it's unavoidable, it the price for not letting Ukraine win in 2022. Biden's biggest legacy is going to be the complete collapse of the non-proliferation treaty.
You cannot/ want to be in bunker for a months and nukes can be transport there also with car. With nukes it is a poker game if UA get some nukes then has some strong card which can be used. But also strong card can be used badly and cause game loose.
I think Benjamin addresses this, it's not about MAD for Ukraine, but ambiguity and uncertainty. How many will they have? Where they be? How will they be delivered?
Not knowing is what causes restraint on behalf of the enemy.
It's not about losing people, it's about knowing that if push comes to shove, if Ukraine is on the threshold of perishing, Ukraine can destroy Moscow and Piter in one last desperate act.
If you're dying do you really care if your enemy kills you a second time, or do you try to take as many of them with you?
Strategic uncertainty.
Putin should know all about this, he's gone out of his way to tell the story of the time as a young boy when he cornered a rat, how that rat fought to escape. He's used it to tell others to not corner him, but does he understand that it also applies to his opponents?
Putin will absolutely test that uncertainty, if he could. He will assume that Ukraine doesn't have nukes and is bluffing untill, like with Japan, 2 nukes would be used. Then he would, depending on the usage, respond in kind: if strategic nuke would be used against Moscow, he would annihilate Kyiv; if tactical nuke would be used in Ukraine against Russian army, he would use tactical nukes against Ukrainian.
Both options are pretty good for him strategically. That's what I would do in his place.
That's not what they're for, Ukrainian nukes woukd not be for warfighting.
The point is, if you think your opponent has nukes you tend to try to avoid giving them no way out. Ie, you might be more inclined to agree to lesser terms than originally envisioned, if those original terms may lead to a nuclear attack.
Nukes in this context may be a sort of dead man's button. Maybe putin doesn't want to risk a tactical nuke against Ukraine if he believes there's a change the retaliation will be against his Piter.
I doubt putin would risk Moscow or Piter just to test Ukrainian resolve.
The entire point is to create uncertainty, if you're unsure of your opponent you may take fewer risks, or you might want to avoid cornering them.
I absolutely do not doubt Putin would risk Moscow or Piter. In fact, nuking Moscow would be a great thing for Putin, if he is really serious about Russian empire. If Russian history teaches us anything, any city, including Moscow, is disposable, and civilians doubly so.
That's not putin, he'll lose three million russians no problem (well, not Moscow or Piter russians, he doesnt even dare to mobilise those, but the rest of them), but not Moscow or Piter, not to just test the water so to speak. He's too dependent on his siloviki. putin may be many things but at heart he's a coward and a common criminal, I think he's amply demonstrated that.
If you look at the luxuries he and his gang surround themselves with, he's not going to risk that, he wants to build an empire for personal gain.
The only person in Russia (and in the world) worth saving according to Putin will be in a bunker. So he doesn't really care even if hundreds of nukes are blown above/around Russia.
As for no way out, it's easy. So, Ukraine would use nukes if Russians attack Kyiv. So don't. Surround it and capture the rest. Zero uncertainty. Better yet, don't move forward at all, just grind Ukrainian manpower until nobody is left. No trigger point for nukes, no danger.
Nukes are only a deterrent if the ruler cares about his people. Or cities. Russian leaders have burned Moscow once, purely out of spite. They will burn it again.
But I think we're arguing about different things, having nuclear weapons is not about using them (unless you're a state that can build enough for MAD), it's about uncertainty, and putin has not been known to enjoy uncertainty. He'll never burn Moscow or Piter to the ground, he's too vain, to much of a comfort creature. He doesn't have the money he needs either.
You are forgetting that people are mortal. Putin is old. He is likely thinking about death. His values may change, if he really thinks he doesn't have all that long. Mine have changed. His may change too. He really may become driven by idea rather than greed. Especially if, as some argue, he doesn't love his children and doesn't value their future.
Do you think that these fictional nukes would be kept in (and launched from) downtown Kyiv, or what? :) If anything, one of the logical "trigger points" is russian army approaching / threatening to cut off their location (which, in an ideal world, they wouldn't know for sure).
Losing Moscow AND Piter in 21th century in a flash, without careful preparations, would be practically synonymous with losing Russia. Sure, they have lots of territory with other cities. But these two places are where the money and power are. Not to mention the "central controls" for pretty much everything.
Think, however, of propaganda value. When I was a child, burning Moscow was a powerful symbol of unification and xenophoby, as also of pride and values symbol - sacrifice everything for Mother Russia.
Main problem for Putin right now is that Russians, in general, don't care about the war or empire. They don't really feel as much hostility to the West as Putin would like. Add, howether, pictures of nuked Moscow, burned shadows on the walls and so on to every kindergarden - and you will get a real emotional drive. Real unity. Real hostility.
But there is a big gap between "Russia imposing crushing terms on Ukraine" and "Russia annihilating the Ukrainian state". Eg having nukes doesn't really help you to recover Donbas or Crimea. Ukraine could lose all the land Russia claims as theirs and come nowhere near to the "existential threat" threshold.
The existential threat for Ukraine was in early 2022, and it's been repulsed purely by conventional arms.
As of now, it looks like Ukraine is gonna lose all the land Russia claims as theirs and - make no mistake - that is all Ukrainian land up to Zbruch at least but most likely all the way to Chop. The existential threat is still there and it is more severe than it was in 2022 when the passionate people willing to fight for Ukraine were alive.
And honestly, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian leadership is not ready to blow up Dnipro crossings (namely, DniproHES Dam) when the time comes in a few months let alone to start thinking about nukes.
That's all assuming that his nukes actually work. Which is doubtful. Nukes require a lot of skilled upkeep. More likely that the money has been pocketed and the materials sold off.
You, again, overestimate the cost of support. Soviet nukes were designed to be reasonably cheap in maintenance by reasonably skilled soviet labor, not rocket scientists. Russia produce tritium - we know it because they sell it. They work - not all of them, but more than enough.
I agree, every country has military secrets. The only real security guarantee for Ukraine is a sizeable nuclear deterrent. I hope France is helping them with more than just mirage jets because they more than any other country in Europe could help them wrt fissile material. But as you've said, Ukraine could even do it on its own. They were deeply involved in the Soviet Nuclear program and have just as much data on all forms of nuclear weapons systems as the US, Russia and France. These(US, Russia, France, Ukraine) are the four countries that did the most testing and experimentation on Nuclear weapons.
IMHO, before going nuclear we should develop reliable means of transporting a payload to the destination. Covert GUR ops with a bomb in a briefcase sound fascinating, but still... Having enough missiles or drones capable of penetrating air defenses and hitting Kremlin or Valday would be a more environment-friendly option, and more robust too.
However, if we hit anything populated with a nuke once, we are done for in 24 hours (probably less).
But, well, if we are fantasising about bombs in briefcases, transporting one into an unpopulated area somewhere in Siberia and blowing it up as a demonstration right after telling Pudding (privately) "hey, look closely what's about to happen there" would probably be an effective option to establish... well, not quite ambiguity. :) Sadly, no environment friendliness about it.
The nuclear question for Ukraine is always how many it needs and the delivery system plus the command and control. A pluralism/real democracy governance Ukraine should be a good decision maker set up for nuclear weapons capability authority otherwise it will be just NK or RF plus others.
I suspect the horses have already left the barn on nuclear proliferation. Iran can assemble one at will, all it takes is to lift the (non-) fatwa on assembled nuclear weapons. I would be extremely surprised if Turkey and SA aren't at least looking at nuclear weapons, South Korea, Taiwan and even Japan need a nuclear deterrent if the US leaves the chat.
Same with a host of other countries, when the Budapest Memorandum fell it signaled to every country on earth that the only thing that will keep you safe is nuclear weapons. No treaty can be trusted, and 47 has demonstrated that the US is a good weather friend.
So why shouldn't Germany or Poland launch a nuclear program?
This is about actions and consequences, Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons and see what happened. Russia will be there in ten years, probably be there in fifty years, an eternal imperial country. This is the crux of Benjamin's argument as I understand it, nuclear weapons will most likely be a question of life or death for Ukraine.
Yes, more nuclear weapons are a terrible thing, increasing the risk for us all, but as 47, and Orban/Fico/Putin have shown us, might=right, and every country has to look out for themselves. By dismantling the rules based order and threatening to leave NATO 47 will force countries to look for ways to defend alone, and very few countries can do that conventionally.
Honestly the only way it seems to defend itself against Imperialism is nukes, canada should be working on those yesterday since the West has failed in everyway to defend democracy
why would you suggest such a thing when we all know political security guarantees like Budapest Memorandum have protected countries with Nuclear weapons and or capability of developing such systems?
Thanks Ben. It seems to me that the key question in this whole issue is what future the powers/politicians who are now deciding its fate have prepared for Ukraine. Zelensky and his rhetoric in this situation can be ignored - he does not decide anything.
Absolutely agree. This has been my thinking for several years now. Ukraine has all the necessary "ingredients" for a nuclear weapon: Fissile material, technological lknow-how and a delivery system (assuming she doesn't have "something" sitting in a Russian warehouse already). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the obvious course of action for a country under threat as Ukraine is, especially when her main ally...the U.S....is now ruled by a psychopathic lunatic, surrounded by equally dysfunctional lickspittles.
Somehow it all sounds like lots of wild fantasy to me...
Even more so, all the comments discussing who would nuke what in which case. Obviously, nukes as a deterrent only work as long as you DON'T use them. As soon as you do use a nuke against a country that has nukes of its own, you are in a state of nuclear war. And that state won't last for too long. Especially in the case of 1-2 fictional Ukrainian nukes vs the whole Russian arsenal (even if somehow 80% of it is non-functional by now) - it won't even be a "war without winners"...
Also, deterrence is meaningless when a war is already in full swing. If someone were to hint unofficially tomorrow that Ukraine already has a secret nuke somewhere, ready to strike Moscow, that rumor alone wouldn't make Pudding instantly withdraw all his forces and cower in fear on Kamchatka. In peacetime, he would probably at least think twice and ask FSB/GRU to double-check if it sounded believable enough. Now? He wouldn't even care. You can't deter what's already here.
After the war? Anything might happen. But first, the war would have to end...
There might be another problem: our famous history of chaotic electoral habits. :)
While right now it looks very unlikely after all that's happened, eventually, as soon as 51% population happens to elect another Yanukovich, any ambiguity might simply end. And, unfortunately, I'm not so sure it won't be a possibility in 10 or 20 years after the war. Our potential "helpers" would probably be even less sure.
I'd say pro-Russian regime is a near certainty in 3-5 years after the war - for the same reason Georgia have one, even though no Georgian loves Russia.
I'm not so sure, Yanukovych even had to resort to boosting Svoboda to gain parliamentary power after failing to steal the first one (along with russian influence ops and money, and sophisticated American election strategists). Being so utterly corrupt he was at the mercy of putin. The support for russia just isn't there in the electorate. Last time the biggest pro russian party got around 13% of the vote?
It was easy for billionaire Ivanishvili to pose as a pro-western philanthropist and buy the first election with both literal bribes and promises, Georgia is not a big country. After the first win he's had to resort to faking it. Think about the enormous resources that have gone into that from russia, from Ivanishvili, and they still needed to fake the results in the last election. Ukraine is what - 11-12 times bigger in terms of population?
Then there's the question of the veterans, what will Prokopenko and Biletsky accept? I'm not convinced they'd be ready to accept a pro-russian government so soon after the war, if ever.
There may be a Trojan Horse candidate of course, time will tell, but
if Zalushnyy doesn't win the next presidential elections I'd be surprised.
It is not a question of buying votes. I think Georgian votes were roughly corresponding with reality. The logic is simple: we don't want another war, so we have to not provoke Russia, pay lip service to it, may be some token small concessions. The veterans aren't going to want to go to war again. And then small concessions add up. That how it was with Ivanishvili.
That's not the same as a pro-russian government, not by a long stretch.
Ivanishvili literally purchased votes with money? This is well documented. He was also in control of much of the country's media. He did originally position himself as a pro-western, pro-EU/NATO businessman and philanthropist. I'm not saying he stole the first election, he used every trick, including vote buying and wild promises of riches, and did win the first election.
Then he blatantly stole the last election, he's only in putins pocket now because he needs that support to avoid being thrown out, or in jail. Same reason Lukashenko, Orban and Fico are in putins pocket. How Yanukovych ended up in his pocket originally.
The 'we must avoid Ukraine's fate' propaganda was just that, russian propaganda to win over a few votes. It didn't deliver enough votes, so they had to resort to all the usual dirty tricks like ballot stuffing and pure fakery.
If you think the leadership of the 3rd Storm Brigade, K-2, Madyar, Azov etc. are going to yield to russia in a couple of years I'm at a loss for words. That hatred runs very very deep.
It strains my brain to believe North Korea and Pakistan have nukes and Iran and Ukraine don't. We have to remember that the deterrence argument was made by cold war hawks. So far, humanity has not created any weapon that wasn't ultimately used. (Did I just write that? I leave that for your amusement).
It amazes me how, despite Ukraine's amazing accomplishments and new technologies over the past few years, it is still viewed as mostly third world.
The reason we know about North Korean nukes is they use them for political ends. Iran doesn't have that political need at the moment. If it said it had nukes tomorrow many Israelis would demand war, so propagandized are they into believing Iran intends to nuke them. It's the same reason Israel doesn't admit they have them. It would force the rest of the Middle East to demand the same.
Ukraine could test a nuke tomorrow and it would change nothing. We have to keep in mind Putin's whole gambit is based on the West's inability to face it on the ground, to eventually decide it's better to get the oil/gas/resources from Russia then help Ukraine. That gambit is still in play.
Fortunately, Ukraine gets stronger every day. So it's not all bad the West has its head so far up its ass it's completely dark ;)
Well, nukes were declared a "deterrent" AFTER they were used as a weapon, because the first demonstrations were "spectacular" enough. So now (almost) everyone wants to have them, but nobody wants them to be used ever again. It's almost funny - if it wasn't so terrifying once you realise where this leads (the more "big players" keep turning "blind eyes" to someone's "special circumstances", the faster).
Just imagine an even smaller dog like Daesh armed with someone's single "missing" nuke. *That* would truly mark the death of non-proliferation. And likely many more deaths...
Exactly. And what will the "super-powers" do if Daesh were to blow up a part of Turkey or some Kurdish village. I believe people are worried about the wrong event. Not a nuke between a nuclear armed nation and someone else, but someone using it against an enemy where there is no clear cut response.
Sorry Andrii, I'm a bit paralyzed that Google just renamed "The Gulf of Mexico" "The Gulf of America" in their map. I don't know where you live, but my country has reached 100% pure nihilism.
The most important word in this discussion is "UNCERTAINTY." The possession and theoretical use of nuclear weapons is fraught with uncertainty. Nobody in advance can know the circumstances and conditions wherein a nuclear weapon can be used for strategic purposes. Thus, I conclude that the possession of (strategic) nuclear weapons whether surreptiously such as with Israel or overtly serves the purpose of maintaining or even enhancing strategic uncertainty. I suspect that a realistic playbook on the employment of a nuclear weapon involving the specific circumstances attending even its theoretical use cannot constitute a credible plan.
Putin's nuclear saber rattling seemed to me to have worked somewhat as he created uncertainty (and fear) in the minds of Western decision-makers regarding material support to Ukraine in this war.
The brake on nuclear proliferation is not technical, it is diplomatic, military and economic. It will become rational for Ukraine to get the bomb once A) US support matters less to Ukraine than having a nuclear deterrent, because the US has no interest in further nuclear proliferation in Europe and B) if the assumption can be securely made that Putin wouldn't pre-emptively use nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction to stop the program. Neither of those hold, or are likely to hold on current trends. Even a Ukrainian rump state and its elites will be more dependent on US/Western support than at present, not less.
This discourse reminds me of the "New Look" Eisenhower strategy of the 1950s - let's stop the conventional might of the Soviets on the cheap with theatre nuclear weapons. The difference there was that the inner German border was not a war zone.
Whether or not they have the bomb, Iβm sure this has been discussed in Kyiv. But with Zelenskyy being the PR master that he is, I donβt see them even hinting at anything on nukes. With Iran I wonder if the Koreans didnβt already send whatβs needed to quickly build one, or a completed bomb already.
Zelensky didnt just hint at Nukes, he stated that Ukraine could build them(but wont), told Trump Ukraine will build them and then had a think tank piece promoted that claimed Ukraine could develop a crude nuclear weapon in months to a year. The only thing that would surprise me is someone not knowing there is some form of Ukrainian nuclear program in the works. No way a leader can make such statements within this context without such a program
The whole discussion seems problematic to me. The deterrence thing works *before* another country invades your country.
If your country is already invaded, you are trapped between some bad and worse options (tactical or strategic warheads? What quantity is enough for a deterrent? How do you hide your weapons if you don't have a ballistic missiles submarine for assurance of MAD?)
And the whole discussion doesn't cover the matter of a delivery vehicle. Ukraine doesn't even have a big ballistic missile, yet
1.) Ukraine not only has delivery systems, they were the primary developer of such systems during the Soviet Union and have a specialty when it comes to liquid fueled ballistic missiles.
2.) Ukraine has a ballistic missile that has been tested on Russia as of August 2024 with a range of around 700km conservatively. Rumoured to be a variant of the Hrim-2.
3.) Ukraine's strikes on Moscow have been cautiously limited due to a lack of a response to a Nuclear retaliatory strike. In essence Ukraine cannot move up the escalation ladder if it were to retaliate to Moscow's strikes on its cities. The best time to have a Nuclear deterrent is yesterday as you've rightfully stated, the second best time is now not tomorrow.
I don't know if Hrim-2 has enough range, accuracy and load capacity for carrying a nuclear warhead (500 km range puts it into the tactical ballistic missile category).
A rumoured ballistic missile with 700 km range is not something concrete on which to base our nuclear deterrence.
Note that silos are prime targets for a first strike by Russia, you would need to continuously move your rockets around on road vehicles - or ballistic missiles submarines.
Liquid fueled ballistic missiles are nasty beasts. Usually, they are using "storable propellants" in room temperature like UDMH (Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) and oxidizers like nitrogen tetroxide (NTO).
These juices are quite nasty if they leak , and hypergolic (they ignite on touch without the need of a fire source). In the west, the Titan II missile was the most typical case of such a missile. Today, nobody in the West uses such fuels for military uses, only solid rocket boosters.
I think if Ukraine was to acquire nukes now it would affect putins negotiation position, and may weaken his resolve for maximalist goals.
I suspect you and I have different views on putins personality, which probably leads to different views on his possible future actions.
The general idea, as I see it, is not that nukes would do a great deal of good right now, mote that once this hot war stops, having a nuclear deterrent may prevent further conflict down the line.
To the Ukrainian leadership I think it's blatantly obvious that only NATO membership or nukes, or both, will prevent a repeat down the line.
Unless russia collapses completely and becomes dozens of normal countries.
I don't like nuclear weapons, and would love to see them eradicated, but that's not going to happen.
There's no reason to assume that Western allies would "turn a blind eye" to or help Ukraine acquire materials to build nuclear bombs. They would have an incentive to publicly punish Ukraine for doing so, or the global non-proliferation mechanism is damaged. If Ukraine could get away with it, why not others? Do we want a world in which every medium sized country has nuclear weapons? This isn't a rhetorical question.
And there's also the presence of IAEA monitoring Ukrainian nuclear plants. Their mission is to prevent exactly that scenario.
Yes, no one has ever been able to conceal anything from the auditors.
The attempt to conceal would already be a trigger
I certainly wouldn't mind if Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics had nuclear weapons, maybe a shared programme in the future. Non-proliferation is broken as it is - look at Belarus and Iran.
I wouldn't mind if only good guys had nukes and bad guys didn't, but the world doesn't work that way.
The bad guys already have them.
Does Ethiopia have them? Venezuela? DRC?
Russia does and I worry about Russia a lot more than Ethiopia or Venezuela.
That's because you don't live in Africa, but over one billion humans do.
"Good" is a temporary thing - and relative.
How "good" is Musk's No-So-United States of America ?
Excellent point. Russia already "proliferated " into Belarus.
Its very hard to avoid it.
The USA could've made a significant step in the right direction by honoring the Budapest agreement when Putin invaded Crimea.
She didn't.
At that point Ukraine should have started building or buying two bombs, to be located in Moscow and St Petersburg. Maybe she did.
Well said!
Israel, India, Pakistan..?
We are already in the world you described. When Russia, US, UK ignored an agreement with no more or no less power than any other agreement... NPT died.
The problem is that for Russia, a few nuclear devices are not a threat or even a deterrent. The current regime would easily sacrifice a million people.
I also don't see how Ukraine could actually use the bomb as "last ditch resort". Say Russian troops are about to encircle Kyiv and are entering its suburbs. Where do you drop the bomb? On Bucha?
Or do you drop it on eg Belgorod, giving Russia a justification to nuke Kharkiv in exchange? Remember that you're going to run out of nukes first.
All the arguments why the West and Ukraine should not be deterred by Putin's nuclear threats apply in reverse.
And if you actually nuke a Russian city full of civilians, you lose the Western public opinion.
False and bogus dichotomy.
"Survival of the state" vs "approval of allies (who allowed it come to this)" isn't really a choice.
As it is now, the Ukrainian state can't survive without the support of Western allies.
If "allies" drive Ukraine to use nukes - then they are not allies anymore.
And of course Ukraine can survive. It had survived long enough already. It had existed as a state centuries before "The West" came to be. No practical reason for it to suddenly cease to exist.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-projected-2025-budget-expects-war-continue-0
Without Western aid, Ukraine would quickly go bankrupt.
If the west soldier will be near Moscow i will be very deterred that Putin will use nukes. Nukes are last step of defence, not the first one and absolutly not for advance. So if UA will have nukes and russia soldiers will be by Kyjiv then...
Then Ukraine nukes Kyiv suburbs? And irradiates their own people?
There's another type of WMD Ukraine could be acquiring right now: chemical weapons like sarin. I'm sure they have the know-how. Somehow they neither do it, nor do they hint about doing it. For similar reasons why going nuclear is not a sensible option for them: because the cost of actually making them, say nothing about using them, would be too expensive to bear.
not kyjiv, but moscow, yes it means you need also some transport there( rocket or car), nukes without transport are useless
What happens after Ukraine nukes Moscow?
A) Ukraine wins?
B) Russia nukes Kyiv?
I think B) is more likely.
Oh, but the logic goes: if Russia would know that Ukraine will nuke Moscow if Russian troops would be near Kiyv, then no Russian troops would ever be near Kiyv! It's obvious!
That logic is wrong.
Why drop them, load them in a truck and take them somewhere useful
There is 1 perfect target. Moscow Kremel. Putin is afraiding about his life and possible attack on Kremel or another Putin s residence can be a very good threat. So important is not to target milions of people in russia but important ones.
Nukes are not precision weapons.
If they were, why didn't Putin nuke Zelensky's office?
Putin doesn't want to use nukes, and nukes are enough precise to kill zelensky or putin, but together with many others. So that's why Putin didn;t use it and thats'why UA will use only as last step.
Russia has means of protecting its top leadership - bunkers, doomsday planes, secret facilities, Moscow's missile defense.
However, the presence of nuclear weapons in Ukraine may stimulate the West to increase support. Because the West fears nuclear weapons more than Russia.
Yes, nukes could be useful as a tool to threaten the West, but not Russia. But that would redefine the relationship between Ukraine and the West considerably. It slid definitely scupper any chance of Ukraine joining the EU, for one.
I believe, faced with a fait accompli, the West would have to shrug it off, there would have to be some face saving reactions, but nothing meaningful, a parking ticket instead of a long jail sentence...
They could easily explain this to their electorate, in terms anyone can understand, and they may want a nuclear armed Ukraine in the club, rather than as a resentful outsider.
They wouldn't like it, but there wouldn't be much they could realistically do to force a second Budapest Memorandum after confirming the first one was worthless.
I suspect some countries would be relieved (and horrified in equal measure), that another nuclear counter to Russia appears, we have to face the reality that we may no longer be protected by the US nuclear umbrella.
The EU has a nuclear armed member already, Orban/Fico may not be around forever to place roadblocks. Besides, if you're about to be annihilated you don't care about EU membership.
I've worried about nuclear proliferation due to the invasion for three years, I think now it's unavoidable, it the price for not letting Ukraine win in 2022. Biden's biggest legacy is going to be the complete collapse of the non-proliferation treaty.
You cannot/ want to be in bunker for a months and nukes can be transport there also with car. With nukes it is a poker game if UA get some nukes then has some strong card which can be used. But also strong card can be used badly and cause game loose.
I think Benjamin addresses this, it's not about MAD for Ukraine, but ambiguity and uncertainty. How many will they have? Where they be? How will they be delivered?
Not knowing is what causes restraint on behalf of the enemy.
It's not about losing people, it's about knowing that if push comes to shove, if Ukraine is on the threshold of perishing, Ukraine can destroy Moscow and Piter in one last desperate act.
If you're dying do you really care if your enemy kills you a second time, or do you try to take as many of them with you?
Strategic uncertainty.
Putin should know all about this, he's gone out of his way to tell the story of the time as a young boy when he cornered a rat, how that rat fought to escape. He's used it to tell others to not corner him, but does he understand that it also applies to his opponents?
Well said.
Putin will absolutely test that uncertainty, if he could. He will assume that Ukraine doesn't have nukes and is bluffing untill, like with Japan, 2 nukes would be used. Then he would, depending on the usage, respond in kind: if strategic nuke would be used against Moscow, he would annihilate Kyiv; if tactical nuke would be used in Ukraine against Russian army, he would use tactical nukes against Ukrainian.
Both options are pretty good for him strategically. That's what I would do in his place.
That's not what they're for, Ukrainian nukes woukd not be for warfighting.
The point is, if you think your opponent has nukes you tend to try to avoid giving them no way out. Ie, you might be more inclined to agree to lesser terms than originally envisioned, if those original terms may lead to a nuclear attack.
Nukes in this context may be a sort of dead man's button. Maybe putin doesn't want to risk a tactical nuke against Ukraine if he believes there's a change the retaliation will be against his Piter.
I doubt putin would risk Moscow or Piter just to test Ukrainian resolve.
The entire point is to create uncertainty, if you're unsure of your opponent you may take fewer risks, or you might want to avoid cornering them.
I absolutely do not doubt Putin would risk Moscow or Piter. In fact, nuking Moscow would be a great thing for Putin, if he is really serious about Russian empire. If Russian history teaches us anything, any city, including Moscow, is disposable, and civilians doubly so.
That's not putin, he'll lose three million russians no problem (well, not Moscow or Piter russians, he doesnt even dare to mobilise those, but the rest of them), but not Moscow or Piter, not to just test the water so to speak. He's too dependent on his siloviki. putin may be many things but at heart he's a coward and a common criminal, I think he's amply demonstrated that.
If you look at the luxuries he and his gang surround themselves with, he's not going to risk that, he wants to build an empire for personal gain.
The only person in Russia (and in the world) worth saving according to Putin will be in a bunker. So he doesn't really care even if hundreds of nukes are blown above/around Russia.
As for no way out, it's easy. So, Ukraine would use nukes if Russians attack Kyiv. So don't. Surround it and capture the rest. Zero uncertainty. Better yet, don't move forward at all, just grind Ukrainian manpower until nobody is left. No trigger point for nukes, no danger.
Nukes are only a deterrent if the ruler cares about his people. Or cities. Russian leaders have burned Moscow once, purely out of spite. They will burn it again.
That is literally no way out?
But I think we're arguing about different things, having nuclear weapons is not about using them (unless you're a state that can build enough for MAD), it's about uncertainty, and putin has not been known to enjoy uncertainty. He'll never burn Moscow or Piter to the ground, he's too vain, to much of a comfort creature. He doesn't have the money he needs either.
You are forgetting that people are mortal. Putin is old. He is likely thinking about death. His values may change, if he really thinks he doesn't have all that long. Mine have changed. His may change too. He really may become driven by idea rather than greed. Especially if, as some argue, he doesn't love his children and doesn't value their future.
Do you think that these fictional nukes would be kept in (and launched from) downtown Kyiv, or what? :) If anything, one of the logical "trigger points" is russian army approaching / threatening to cut off their location (which, in an ideal world, they wouldn't know for sure).
They could be smuggled into Russia and hidden in locations inside Moscow and Saint Petersburg, to be detonated on a given signal.
On the down side, the same thing could be done to about any country on earth.
Losing Moscow AND Piter in 21th century in a flash, without careful preparations, would be practically synonymous with losing Russia. Sure, they have lots of territory with other cities. But these two places are where the money and power are. Not to mention the "central controls" for pretty much everything.
Think, however, of propaganda value. When I was a child, burning Moscow was a powerful symbol of unification and xenophoby, as also of pride and values symbol - sacrifice everything for Mother Russia.
Main problem for Putin right now is that Russians, in general, don't care about the war or empire. They don't really feel as much hostility to the West as Putin would like. Add, howether, pictures of nuked Moscow, burned shadows on the walls and so on to every kindergarden - and you will get a real emotional drive. Real unity. Real hostility.
But there is a big gap between "Russia imposing crushing terms on Ukraine" and "Russia annihilating the Ukrainian state". Eg having nukes doesn't really help you to recover Donbas or Crimea. Ukraine could lose all the land Russia claims as theirs and come nowhere near to the "existential threat" threshold.
The existential threat for Ukraine was in early 2022, and it's been repulsed purely by conventional arms.
As of now, it looks like Ukraine is gonna lose all the land Russia claims as theirs and - make no mistake - that is all Ukrainian land up to Zbruch at least but most likely all the way to Chop. The existential threat is still there and it is more severe than it was in 2022 when the passionate people willing to fight for Ukraine were alive.
And honestly, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian leadership is not ready to blow up Dnipro crossings (namely, DniproHES Dam) when the time comes in a few months let alone to start thinking about nukes.
That's all assuming that his nukes actually work. Which is doubtful. Nukes require a lot of skilled upkeep. More likely that the money has been pocketed and the materials sold off.
You, again, overestimate the cost of support. Soviet nukes were designed to be reasonably cheap in maintenance by reasonably skilled soviet labor, not rocket scientists. Russia produce tritium - we know it because they sell it. They work - not all of them, but more than enough.
I agree, every country has military secrets. The only real security guarantee for Ukraine is a sizeable nuclear deterrent. I hope France is helping them with more than just mirage jets because they more than any other country in Europe could help them wrt fissile material. But as you've said, Ukraine could even do it on its own. They were deeply involved in the Soviet Nuclear program and have just as much data on all forms of nuclear weapons systems as the US, Russia and France. These(US, Russia, France, Ukraine) are the four countries that did the most testing and experimentation on Nuclear weapons.
The sooner the better for Ukraine.
IMHO, before going nuclear we should develop reliable means of transporting a payload to the destination. Covert GUR ops with a bomb in a briefcase sound fascinating, but still... Having enough missiles or drones capable of penetrating air defenses and hitting Kremlin or Valday would be a more environment-friendly option, and more robust too.
However, if we hit anything populated with a nuke once, we are done for in 24 hours (probably less).
But, well, if we are fantasising about bombs in briefcases, transporting one into an unpopulated area somewhere in Siberia and blowing it up as a demonstration right after telling Pudding (privately) "hey, look closely what's about to happen there" would probably be an effective option to establish... well, not quite ambiguity. :) Sadly, no environment friendliness about it.
Anyway - fantasies, fantasies...
The nuclear question for Ukraine is always how many it needs and the delivery system plus the command and control. A pluralism/real democracy governance Ukraine should be a good decision maker set up for nuclear weapons capability authority otherwise it will be just NK or RF plus others.
A nuclear Ukraine would mean a nuclear Poland, nuclear Germany, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Turkey...
Hell, why not a add nuclear South Korea, nuclear Japan.
Lets give nukes to the Palestinians as well to protect them from ethnic cleansing by Israel and the US.
I suspect the horses have already left the barn on nuclear proliferation. Iran can assemble one at will, all it takes is to lift the (non-) fatwa on assembled nuclear weapons. I would be extremely surprised if Turkey and SA aren't at least looking at nuclear weapons, South Korea, Taiwan and even Japan need a nuclear deterrent if the US leaves the chat.
Same with a host of other countries, when the Budapest Memorandum fell it signaled to every country on earth that the only thing that will keep you safe is nuclear weapons. No treaty can be trusted, and 47 has demonstrated that the US is a good weather friend.
So why shouldn't Germany or Poland launch a nuclear program?
This is about actions and consequences, Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons and see what happened. Russia will be there in ten years, probably be there in fifty years, an eternal imperial country. This is the crux of Benjamin's argument as I understand it, nuclear weapons will most likely be a question of life or death for Ukraine.
Yes, more nuclear weapons are a terrible thing, increasing the risk for us all, but as 47, and Orban/Fico/Putin have shown us, might=right, and every country has to look out for themselves. By dismantling the rules based order and threatening to leave NATO 47 will force countries to look for ways to defend alone, and very few countries can do that conventionally.
Honestly the only way it seems to defend itself against Imperialism is nukes, canada should be working on those yesterday since the West has failed in everyway to defend democracy
why would you suggest such a thing when we all know political security guarantees like Budapest Memorandum have protected countries with Nuclear weapons and or capability of developing such systems?
Thanks Ben. It seems to me that the key question in this whole issue is what future the powers/politicians who are now deciding its fate have prepared for Ukraine. Zelensky and his rhetoric in this situation can be ignored - he does not decide anything.
Absolutely agree. This has been my thinking for several years now. Ukraine has all the necessary "ingredients" for a nuclear weapon: Fissile material, technological lknow-how and a delivery system (assuming she doesn't have "something" sitting in a Russian warehouse already). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the obvious course of action for a country under threat as Ukraine is, especially when her main ally...the U.S....is now ruled by a psychopathic lunatic, surrounded by equally dysfunctional lickspittles.
Somehow it all sounds like lots of wild fantasy to me...
Even more so, all the comments discussing who would nuke what in which case. Obviously, nukes as a deterrent only work as long as you DON'T use them. As soon as you do use a nuke against a country that has nukes of its own, you are in a state of nuclear war. And that state won't last for too long. Especially in the case of 1-2 fictional Ukrainian nukes vs the whole Russian arsenal (even if somehow 80% of it is non-functional by now) - it won't even be a "war without winners"...
Also, deterrence is meaningless when a war is already in full swing. If someone were to hint unofficially tomorrow that Ukraine already has a secret nuke somewhere, ready to strike Moscow, that rumor alone wouldn't make Pudding instantly withdraw all his forces and cower in fear on Kamchatka. In peacetime, he would probably at least think twice and ask FSB/GRU to double-check if it sounded believable enough. Now? He wouldn't even care. You can't deter what's already here.
After the war? Anything might happen. But first, the war would have to end...
Yes, during the war you deny. After the war you change the strategy to nuclear ambiguity.
There might be another problem: our famous history of chaotic electoral habits. :)
While right now it looks very unlikely after all that's happened, eventually, as soon as 51% population happens to elect another Yanukovich, any ambiguity might simply end. And, unfortunately, I'm not so sure it won't be a possibility in 10 or 20 years after the war. Our potential "helpers" would probably be even less sure.
I'd say pro-Russian regime is a near certainty in 3-5 years after the war - for the same reason Georgia have one, even though no Georgian loves Russia.
I'm not so sure, Yanukovych even had to resort to boosting Svoboda to gain parliamentary power after failing to steal the first one (along with russian influence ops and money, and sophisticated American election strategists). Being so utterly corrupt he was at the mercy of putin. The support for russia just isn't there in the electorate. Last time the biggest pro russian party got around 13% of the vote?
It was easy for billionaire Ivanishvili to pose as a pro-western philanthropist and buy the first election with both literal bribes and promises, Georgia is not a big country. After the first win he's had to resort to faking it. Think about the enormous resources that have gone into that from russia, from Ivanishvili, and they still needed to fake the results in the last election. Ukraine is what - 11-12 times bigger in terms of population?
Then there's the question of the veterans, what will Prokopenko and Biletsky accept? I'm not convinced they'd be ready to accept a pro-russian government so soon after the war, if ever.
There may be a Trojan Horse candidate of course, time will tell, but
if Zalushnyy doesn't win the next presidential elections I'd be surprised.
It is not a question of buying votes. I think Georgian votes were roughly corresponding with reality. The logic is simple: we don't want another war, so we have to not provoke Russia, pay lip service to it, may be some token small concessions. The veterans aren't going to want to go to war again. And then small concessions add up. That how it was with Ivanishvili.
That's not the same as a pro-russian government, not by a long stretch.
Ivanishvili literally purchased votes with money? This is well documented. He was also in control of much of the country's media. He did originally position himself as a pro-western, pro-EU/NATO businessman and philanthropist. I'm not saying he stole the first election, he used every trick, including vote buying and wild promises of riches, and did win the first election.
Then he blatantly stole the last election, he's only in putins pocket now because he needs that support to avoid being thrown out, or in jail. Same reason Lukashenko, Orban and Fico are in putins pocket. How Yanukovych ended up in his pocket originally.
The 'we must avoid Ukraine's fate' propaganda was just that, russian propaganda to win over a few votes. It didn't deliver enough votes, so they had to resort to all the usual dirty tricks like ballot stuffing and pure fakery.
If you think the leadership of the 3rd Storm Brigade, K-2, Madyar, Azov etc. are going to yield to russia in a couple of years I'm at a loss for words. That hatred runs very very deep.
Georgia and Ukraine are not the same.
It strains my brain to believe North Korea and Pakistan have nukes and Iran and Ukraine don't. We have to remember that the deterrence argument was made by cold war hawks. So far, humanity has not created any weapon that wasn't ultimately used. (Did I just write that? I leave that for your amusement).
It amazes me how, despite Ukraine's amazing accomplishments and new technologies over the past few years, it is still viewed as mostly third world.
The reason we know about North Korean nukes is they use them for political ends. Iran doesn't have that political need at the moment. If it said it had nukes tomorrow many Israelis would demand war, so propagandized are they into believing Iran intends to nuke them. It's the same reason Israel doesn't admit they have them. It would force the rest of the Middle East to demand the same.
Ukraine could test a nuke tomorrow and it would change nothing. We have to keep in mind Putin's whole gambit is based on the West's inability to face it on the ground, to eventually decide it's better to get the oil/gas/resources from Russia then help Ukraine. That gambit is still in play.
Fortunately, Ukraine gets stronger every day. So it's not all bad the West has its head so far up its ass it's completely dark ;)
Well, nukes were declared a "deterrent" AFTER they were used as a weapon, because the first demonstrations were "spectacular" enough. So now (almost) everyone wants to have them, but nobody wants them to be used ever again. It's almost funny - if it wasn't so terrifying once you realise where this leads (the more "big players" keep turning "blind eyes" to someone's "special circumstances", the faster).
When the big dogs fight, the little dogs will nuke their bones ;)
Just imagine an even smaller dog like Daesh armed with someone's single "missing" nuke. *That* would truly mark the death of non-proliferation. And likely many more deaths...
Exactly. And what will the "super-powers" do if Daesh were to blow up a part of Turkey or some Kurdish village. I believe people are worried about the wrong event. Not a nuke between a nuclear armed nation and someone else, but someone using it against an enemy where there is no clear cut response.
They'd probably do the same they did after 9.11. Declare war on terrorism.
Sorry Andrii, I'm a bit paralyzed that Google just renamed "The Gulf of Mexico" "The Gulf of America" in their map. I don't know where you live, but my country has reached 100% pure nihilism.
The most important word in this discussion is "UNCERTAINTY." The possession and theoretical use of nuclear weapons is fraught with uncertainty. Nobody in advance can know the circumstances and conditions wherein a nuclear weapon can be used for strategic purposes. Thus, I conclude that the possession of (strategic) nuclear weapons whether surreptiously such as with Israel or overtly serves the purpose of maintaining or even enhancing strategic uncertainty. I suspect that a realistic playbook on the employment of a nuclear weapon involving the specific circumstances attending even its theoretical use cannot constitute a credible plan.
Putin's nuclear saber rattling seemed to me to have worked somewhat as he created uncertainty (and fear) in the minds of Western decision-makers regarding material support to Ukraine in this war.
The brake on nuclear proliferation is not technical, it is diplomatic, military and economic. It will become rational for Ukraine to get the bomb once A) US support matters less to Ukraine than having a nuclear deterrent, because the US has no interest in further nuclear proliferation in Europe and B) if the assumption can be securely made that Putin wouldn't pre-emptively use nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction to stop the program. Neither of those hold, or are likely to hold on current trends. Even a Ukrainian rump state and its elites will be more dependent on US/Western support than at present, not less.
This discourse reminds me of the "New Look" Eisenhower strategy of the 1950s - let's stop the conventional might of the Soviets on the cheap with theatre nuclear weapons. The difference there was that the inner German border was not a war zone.
Whether or not they have the bomb, Iβm sure this has been discussed in Kyiv. But with Zelenskyy being the PR master that he is, I donβt see them even hinting at anything on nukes. With Iran I wonder if the Koreans didnβt already send whatβs needed to quickly build one, or a completed bomb already.
Zelensky didnt just hint at Nukes, he stated that Ukraine could build them(but wont), told Trump Ukraine will build them and then had a think tank piece promoted that claimed Ukraine could develop a crude nuclear weapon in months to a year. The only thing that would surprise me is someone not knowing there is some form of Ukrainian nuclear program in the works. No way a leader can make such statements within this context without such a program
The whole discussion seems problematic to me. The deterrence thing works *before* another country invades your country.
If your country is already invaded, you are trapped between some bad and worse options (tactical or strategic warheads? What quantity is enough for a deterrent? How do you hide your weapons if you don't have a ballistic missiles submarine for assurance of MAD?)
And the whole discussion doesn't cover the matter of a delivery vehicle. Ukraine doesn't even have a big ballistic missile, yet
1.) Ukraine not only has delivery systems, they were the primary developer of such systems during the Soviet Union and have a specialty when it comes to liquid fueled ballistic missiles.
2.) Ukraine has a ballistic missile that has been tested on Russia as of August 2024 with a range of around 700km conservatively. Rumoured to be a variant of the Hrim-2.
3.) Ukraine's strikes on Moscow have been cautiously limited due to a lack of a response to a Nuclear retaliatory strike. In essence Ukraine cannot move up the escalation ladder if it were to retaliate to Moscow's strikes on its cities. The best time to have a Nuclear deterrent is yesterday as you've rightfully stated, the second best time is now not tomorrow.
I don't know if Hrim-2 has enough range, accuracy and load capacity for carrying a nuclear warhead (500 km range puts it into the tactical ballistic missile category).
A rumoured ballistic missile with 700 km range is not something concrete on which to base our nuclear deterrence.
Note that silos are prime targets for a first strike by Russia, you would need to continuously move your rockets around on road vehicles - or ballistic missiles submarines.
Liquid fueled ballistic missiles are nasty beasts. Usually, they are using "storable propellants" in room temperature like UDMH (Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) and oxidizers like nitrogen tetroxide (NTO).
These juices are quite nasty if they leak , and hypergolic (they ignite on touch without the need of a fire source). In the west, the Titan II missile was the most typical case of such a missile. Today, nobody in the West uses such fuels for military uses, only solid rocket boosters.
I think if Ukraine was to acquire nukes now it would affect putins negotiation position, and may weaken his resolve for maximalist goals.
I suspect you and I have different views on putins personality, which probably leads to different views on his possible future actions.
The general idea, as I see it, is not that nukes would do a great deal of good right now, mote that once this hot war stops, having a nuclear deterrent may prevent further conflict down the line.
To the Ukrainian leadership I think it's blatantly obvious that only NATO membership or nukes, or both, will prevent a repeat down the line.
Unless russia collapses completely and becomes dozens of normal countries.
I don't like nuclear weapons, and would love to see them eradicated, but that's not going to happen.