14 ms·

I'm very surprised the US doesn't seem to be taking the risk of Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Weapons state seriously. By now, they surely would have had time to d

by sfifs 11mo ago

I'm very surprised the US doesn't seem to be taking the risk of Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Weapons state seriously. By now, they surely would have had time to develop get to the brink of weaponization as a backup plan - they've after all always had a nuclear industry. If they do so and offer cover to their neighbors who realize NATO may not be sufficient, we are in for interesting times.

immibis 11mo ago
Ukraine WAS a nuclear weapons state, until the US agreed to protect them from Russia with the US's nuclear weapons, if they gave up their own.
- insane_dreamer 11mo ago
  What actually happened to the nukes the Ukrainians had? Were they transferred to the US? Destroyed?
  - throw-the-towel 11mo ago
    Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. The ones in Ukraine got moved into Russia, in exchange for Ukraine receiving money and security guarantees.
    - insane_dreamer 11mo ago
      Thanks. Did that happen immediately after the USSR breakup, i.e., when Yeltsin was in charge, or more recently under Putin?
      - throw-the-towel 11mo ago
        Still under Yeltsin, 1994 I think. If you've heard about the Budapest Memorandum, that's exactly what it was about.
        guerby 11mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Signed 5 December 1994 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[10] 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (...)
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        brabel 11mo ago
        The same article says the US itself claimed the Memorandum was not legally binding when it sanctioned Belarus. And the Analysis section starts with a clear: The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it does not confer any new legal obligations for signatory states. It also states that many Ukrainians at the time considered that keeping the nukes was an unrealistic option since all maintenance and equipment required to maintain them were located in Russia, Ukraine was under a financial crisis at the time and had no means to develop those things itself. I just can’t understand people now claiming it was a mistake to give up the nukes. Russia might have reasonably invaded Ukraine as soon as it was clear they intended to keep them as they knew they didn’t really have the ability to use them and no Western government would support them using them and starting a war that would likely contaminate half of Europe and cause terrible loss of life. It was absolutely the right thing to do for Ukraine. Even if that didn’t save them from future aggression, which I think was mostly the fault of the West for not being prepared to really sign a binding document and put the lives of their own soldiers on the line.
    - overfeed 11mo ago
      > Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state It's not quite the same, since Ukraine was part of the USSR, and Ukrainian scientists, engineers, and tradesmen contributed to the effort. Germany, on the other hand, was never part of the American federation, and didn't contribute to American weapons development...since Wernher von Braun/Operation Paperclip.
      - _djo_ 11mo ago
        Indeed. There was even a question of whether they could legally be considered Ukrainian or Russian weapons, regardless of where the command centre was. To solve that while the talks were ongoing they set up a ‘joint’ command centre in Moscow with ex-SSR countries theoretically sharing joint control over the weapons with Moscow. Ukraine at one point wanted to formally claim ownership over the weapons, as after all breaking the permissive action locks wasn’t that difficult. The US talked them out of it, as a lead up to the Budapest Memorandum. We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth.
        VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
        > We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth. They were worth 30 years of peace. It wasn't a treaty. Everyone knew it was a handshake agreement without consequences for breaking it. It prevented an immediate war in eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR. A war that could have been much worse involving nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the war came 30 years later.
        _djo_ 11mo ago
        20 years, not 30, and not even that. There were other clashes plus massive Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs just a few years after Budapest. For something as serious as giving up a nuclear arsenal it’s reasonable to expect to get more than 20 years of peace and for the co-signers to actual fulfil their parts of the agreement, whether legally binding or not. The end result is that no country will soon trust a Russian non-aggression promise and none will trust an American promise of support.
    - Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
      > Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. This is not an accurate comparison. It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Many of the Soviet soldiers manning them were Ukrainians and stayed behind. Much of the infrastructure for maintaining the Soviet arsenal was also in Ukraine and had to be rebuilt in Russia. The situation was more akin to if the US broke up and Louisiana (which has a lot of nuclear warheads stationed in it) is dealing with whether they are now a nuclear power, or if they need to hand them over to South Carolina or something.
      - nwellnhof 11mo ago
        > It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Russia is the single legal successor of the USSR, so all Soviet nukes became Russian nukes, regardless where they were located. So after the USSR broke up, Russia did have nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them.
        dragonwriter 11mo ago
        Legal succession is mostly irrelevant and more complicated than that. Russia had operational control because it had taken physical control of the ex-Soviet command and control systems which were in Russia, and hence had the launch codes, etc.
        throw-the-towel 11mo ago
        To be fair, Russia becoming the single successor of the USSR wasn't a foregone conclusion in the early 1990s. There wasn't relevant precedent of a country dissolving I think -- Yugoslavia was still battling it out, Austria-Hungary was too long ago.
        int_19h 11mo ago
        It was an explicit decision by both CIS and UN. Russia took USSR's seat on UNSC two weeks after USSR was dissolved, and that happened in 1991. Budapest Memorandum was negotiated 3 years later, by which time this was already a firmly established thing.
    - hackandthink 11mo ago
      Mearsheimer was right in 1993 (nukes). https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears... He was right in 2014: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... And he is still right: https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-wa...
      - kakacik 11mo ago
        Not really, went through the last post and its an utter pile of shit to be very polite. Basically russian propaganda, seen 1000 times. It ignores that people should have their right to self-determination, don't want to live under russian oppression. As somebody whose family lives were ruined by exactly same oppression of exactly same russia (err soviet union but we all know who set the absolute tone of that 'union' and once possible everybody else run the fuck away as quickly as possible) I can fully understand anybody who wants to have basic freedom and some prospect of future for their children - russia takes that away, they subjugate, oppress, erase whole ethnicities, whoever sticks out and their close ones is dealt with brutally. Not worth the electrical energy used to display that text. Unless you enjoy russian propaganda, then all is good.
      - lkramer 11mo ago
        I think this guy paints a difference in thought that is not really there. Putin sees Ukraine neutrality and impotence as vital to Russia's security. No, he probably does not want to actually annex Ukraine, that would be a ball ache he doesn't need, but he would like it to behave like Belarus. I think the real difference lies in whether one believes Ukraine deserves to decide its own path, or if it's forever doomed to be a chess piece on the board between spheres of influence, which seems to be the mindset both Putin and Trump are stuck in.
- wat10000 11mo ago
  The US did not agree to protect them. The signatures to the Budapest Memorandum agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Of the signatories, Russia is the only one that has violated the agreement.
  - HappyPanacea 11mo ago
    Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says the following: " 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Both seems to not happen as stipulated. Edit: I didn't read properly, 4 obviously didn't happen, my bad.
    - floxy 11mo ago
      The actual memorandum is shorter than the Wikipedia article about it. The English-language portion is literally only three pages of double spaced text. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
      - lukan 11mo ago
        But the quotes you seem to challenge are also part of the original document you just linked.
        floxy 11mo ago
        I didn't challenge anything. Just posting a link to the actual source documentation.
    - Fraterkes 11mo ago
      I guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?
- Lapsa 11mo ago
  afaik Ukraine never got paid for nuclear disarmament as initially agreed - about $200 billions
  - wat10000 11mo ago
    I wonder where people get these ideas. The Budapest Memorandum is very short, it'll take five minutes to read if you want to know what was actually agreed. It seems like people just sort of imagine what they would have agreed to, and run with it.
    - Lapsa 11mo ago
      thank you, will take a closer look. overheard it from whatever talk. ain't easy to fact check everything
      - mh- 11mo ago
        It's pretty easy to avoid repeating unverified things, though.
  - SiempreViernes 11mo ago
    They got paid mainly in nuclear fuel, there was some disagreement at the rate by which they got fuel in exchange for the weapons and maybe they didn't get quite all the fuel they should have, but for sure they did get paid at least partially.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 11mo ago
  It wasn't. It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)
    - drysine 11mo ago
      >Ukraine should have kept its nukes They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles. [0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missile-transfers https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles Unclear. A nuclear Kyiv would have different security incentives than a non-nuclear one.
        drysine 11mo ago
        Unclear? They are busy stealing hundreds of millions dollars[0] while having security incentive in form of ongoing war. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zelensky-corruption.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zele...
      - immibis 11mo ago
- polski-g 11mo ago
  The Senate never ratified that treaty, so no the US never agreed to so that. And the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say that anyway.
NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
The ideal scenario would have been if Ukraine had secretly retained 30-100 warheads. Everyone likes to prattle on about how they couldn't even have used them: those people are mentally retarded. A sophisticated government with nuclear and aerospace scientists could have easily dismantled interlocks and installed their own. Maybe not in a hurry, but they had 3 decades more or less. And if they didn't have the expertise, they might have outsourced it to Taiwan for the fee of a few nukes to keep. Ukraine *desperately* needs to be a nuclear weapons state. Nothing else will suffice. They need more than one bomb, really more than three or four. Putin has to be terrified that no matter how many nuclear strikes he endures, another waits to follow. When he fears that, the war will end.
- wat10000 11mo ago
  The war might end in Ukraine being flattened by Russian nuclear weapons if that happened. Putin would be backed into a corner. End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike (or just the threat of one) and he'll risk being deposed and meet a gruesome end. Retaliate overwhelmingly and risk escalation from other nuclear powers. It's not clear to me that the second risk would be worse, and definitely not clear to me that Putin wouldn't see that as the better of two bad options. As has been illustrated so well over the past few years, the power of nuclear weapons is a paradox. It allows you to make the ultimate threat. But that threat isn't credible unless people believe you'll use them. Because the consequences of using them are so severe, they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. Russia's arsenal hasn't allowed it to stop a constant flow of weapons to its enemy, an enemy which has invaded and still controls a small bit of Russian territory, and which frequently carries out aerial attacks on Russian territory. Ukraine faces much more of an existential threat (Ukraine has no prospect of conquering Russia, but the reverse is a serious possibility) so a nuclear threat from Ukraine would be more credible, but it could easily still not be enough. Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
    >Putin would be backed into a corner. He'd be backed into the door marked "exit". There is no corner to trap him here. >End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike And why do you believe that Zelensky or whoever is in charge would nuke Moscow first? Do you think that, if they had say 30 nukes (plenty for a few relatively harmless demonstrations) that this would be the first target? Obviously they'd pick something that he could decide to de-escalate afterwards. >they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. You mean such as the severe threat that Ukraine has endured for a decade at this point? The war now threatens to make them functionally extinct. Many have fled and will never return, their population is reduced to something absurdly low, many of their children have been forcibly abducted to be indoctrinated or tormented/tortured. That condition you impose was pre-satisfied. >Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card. Of course not. They'd have to be used intelligently (readers: "used" does not imply detonated). It's not entirely clear to me that this would be the case with Ukraine/Zelensky. But nothing less at this point will suffice. Even if the US promised to put 150,000 troops on the ground, this wouldn't end. It would only escalate. Perhaps to that nuclear war you seem to fear.

by sfifs 11mo ago

immibis 11mo ago

Ukraine WAS a nuclear weapons state, until the US agreed to protect them from Russia with the US's nuclear weapons, if they gave up their own.

insane_dreamer 11mo ago
What actually happened to the nukes the Ukrainians had? Were they transferred to the US? Destroyed?
- throw-the-towel 11mo ago
  Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. The ones in Ukraine got moved into Russia, in exchange for Ukraine receiving money and security guarantees.
  - insane_dreamer 11mo ago
    Thanks. Did that happen immediately after the USSR breakup, i.e., when Yeltsin was in charge, or more recently under Putin?
    - throw-the-towel 11mo ago
      Still under Yeltsin, 1994 I think. If you've heard about the Budapest Memorandum, that's exactly what it was about.
      - guerby 11mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Signed 5 December 1994 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[10] 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (...)
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        brabel 11mo ago
        The same article says the US itself claimed the Memorandum was not legally binding when it sanctioned Belarus. And the Analysis section starts with a clear: The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it does not confer any new legal obligations for signatory states. It also states that many Ukrainians at the time considered that keeping the nukes was an unrealistic option since all maintenance and equipment required to maintain them were located in Russia, Ukraine was under a financial crisis at the time and had no means to develop those things itself. I just can’t understand people now claiming it was a mistake to give up the nukes. Russia might have reasonably invaded Ukraine as soon as it was clear they intended to keep them as they knew they didn’t really have the ability to use them and no Western government would support them using them and starting a war that would likely contaminate half of Europe and cause terrible loss of life. It was absolutely the right thing to do for Ukraine. Even if that didn’t save them from future aggression, which I think was mostly the fault of the West for not being prepared to really sign a binding document and put the lives of their own soldiers on the line.
  - overfeed 11mo ago
    > Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state It's not quite the same, since Ukraine was part of the USSR, and Ukrainian scientists, engineers, and tradesmen contributed to the effort. Germany, on the other hand, was never part of the American federation, and didn't contribute to American weapons development...since Wernher von Braun/Operation Paperclip.
    - _djo_ 11mo ago
      Indeed. There was even a question of whether they could legally be considered Ukrainian or Russian weapons, regardless of where the command centre was. To solve that while the talks were ongoing they set up a ‘joint’ command centre in Moscow with ex-SSR countries theoretically sharing joint control over the weapons with Moscow. Ukraine at one point wanted to formally claim ownership over the weapons, as after all breaking the permissive action locks wasn’t that difficult. The US talked them out of it, as a lead up to the Budapest Memorandum. We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth.
      - VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
        > We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth. They were worth 30 years of peace. It wasn't a treaty. Everyone knew it was a handshake agreement without consequences for breaking it. It prevented an immediate war in eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR. A war that could have been much worse involving nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the war came 30 years later.
        _djo_ 11mo ago
        20 years, not 30, and not even that. There were other clashes plus massive Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs just a few years after Budapest. For something as serious as giving up a nuclear arsenal it’s reasonable to expect to get more than 20 years of peace and for the co-signers to actual fulfil their parts of the agreement, whether legally binding or not. The end result is that no country will soon trust a Russian non-aggression promise and none will trust an American promise of support.
  - Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
    > Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. This is not an accurate comparison. It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Many of the Soviet soldiers manning them were Ukrainians and stayed behind. Much of the infrastructure for maintaining the Soviet arsenal was also in Ukraine and had to be rebuilt in Russia. The situation was more akin to if the US broke up and Louisiana (which has a lot of nuclear warheads stationed in it) is dealing with whether they are now a nuclear power, or if they need to hand them over to South Carolina or something.
    - nwellnhof 11mo ago
      > It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Russia is the single legal successor of the USSR, so all Soviet nukes became Russian nukes, regardless where they were located. So after the USSR broke up, Russia did have nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them.
      - dragonwriter 11mo ago
        Legal succession is mostly irrelevant and more complicated than that. Russia had operational control because it had taken physical control of the ex-Soviet command and control systems which were in Russia, and hence had the launch codes, etc.
      - throw-the-towel 11mo ago
        To be fair, Russia becoming the single successor of the USSR wasn't a foregone conclusion in the early 1990s. There wasn't relevant precedent of a country dissolving I think -- Yugoslavia was still battling it out, Austria-Hungary was too long ago.
        int_19h 11mo ago
        It was an explicit decision by both CIS and UN. Russia took USSR's seat on UNSC two weeks after USSR was dissolved, and that happened in 1991. Budapest Memorandum was negotiated 3 years later, by which time this was already a firmly established thing.
  - hackandthink 11mo ago
    Mearsheimer was right in 1993 (nukes). https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears... He was right in 2014: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... And he is still right: https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-wa...
    - kakacik 11mo ago
      Not really, went through the last post and its an utter pile of shit to be very polite. Basically russian propaganda, seen 1000 times. It ignores that people should have their right to self-determination, don't want to live under russian oppression. As somebody whose family lives were ruined by exactly same oppression of exactly same russia (err soviet union but we all know who set the absolute tone of that 'union' and once possible everybody else run the fuck away as quickly as possible) I can fully understand anybody who wants to have basic freedom and some prospect of future for their children - russia takes that away, they subjugate, oppress, erase whole ethnicities, whoever sticks out and their close ones is dealt with brutally. Not worth the electrical energy used to display that text. Unless you enjoy russian propaganda, then all is good.
    - lkramer 11mo ago
      I think this guy paints a difference in thought that is not really there. Putin sees Ukraine neutrality and impotence as vital to Russia's security. No, he probably does not want to actually annex Ukraine, that would be a ball ache he doesn't need, but he would like it to behave like Belarus. I think the real difference lies in whether one believes Ukraine deserves to decide its own path, or if it's forever doomed to be a chess piece on the board between spheres of influence, which seems to be the mindset both Putin and Trump are stuck in.
wat10000 11mo ago
The US did not agree to protect them. The signatures to the Budapest Memorandum agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Of the signatories, Russia is the only one that has violated the agreement.
- HappyPanacea 11mo ago
  Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says the following: " 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Both seems to not happen as stipulated. Edit: I didn't read properly, 4 obviously didn't happen, my bad.
  - floxy 11mo ago
    The actual memorandum is shorter than the Wikipedia article about it. The English-language portion is literally only three pages of double spaced text. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
    - lukan 11mo ago
      But the quotes you seem to challenge are also part of the original document you just linked.
      - floxy 11mo ago
        I didn't challenge anything. Just posting a link to the actual source documentation.
  - Fraterkes 11mo ago
    I guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?
Lapsa 11mo ago
afaik Ukraine never got paid for nuclear disarmament as initially agreed - about $200 billions
- wat10000 11mo ago
  I wonder where people get these ideas. The Budapest Memorandum is very short, it'll take five minutes to read if you want to know what was actually agreed. It seems like people just sort of imagine what they would have agreed to, and run with it.
  - Lapsa 11mo ago
    thank you, will take a closer look. overheard it from whatever talk. ain't easy to fact check everything
    - mh- 11mo ago
      It's pretty easy to avoid repeating unverified things, though.
- SiempreViernes 11mo ago
  They got paid mainly in nuclear fuel, there was some disagreement at the rate by which they got fuel in exchange for the weapons and maybe they didn't get quite all the fuel they should have, but for sure they did get paid at least partially.
Mikhail_Edoshin 11mo ago
It wasn't. It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)
  - drysine 11mo ago
    >Ukraine should have kept its nukes They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles. [0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missile-transfers https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles Unclear. A nuclear Kyiv would have different security incentives than a non-nuclear one.
      - drysine 11mo ago
        Unclear? They are busy stealing hundreds of millions dollars[0] while having security incentive in form of ongoing war. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zelensky-corruption.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zele...
    - immibis 11mo ago
polski-g 11mo ago
The Senate never ratified that treaty, so no the US never agreed to so that. And the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say that anyway.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago

The ideal scenario would have been if Ukraine had secretly retained 30-100 warheads. Everyone likes to prattle on about how they couldn't even have used them: those people are mentally retarded. A sophisticated government with nuclear and aerospace scientists could have easily dismantled interlocks and installed their own. Maybe not in a hurry, but they had 3 decades more or less. And if they didn't have the expertise, they might have outsourced it to Taiwan for the fee of a few nukes to keep. Ukraine *desperately* needs to be a nuclear weapons state. Nothing else will suffice. They need more than one bomb, really more than three or four. Putin has to be terrified that no matter how many nuclear strikes he endures, another waits to follow. When he fears that, the war will end.

wat10000 11mo ago
The war might end in Ukraine being flattened by Russian nuclear weapons if that happened. Putin would be backed into a corner. End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike (or just the threat of one) and he'll risk being deposed and meet a gruesome end. Retaliate overwhelmingly and risk escalation from other nuclear powers. It's not clear to me that the second risk would be worse, and definitely not clear to me that Putin wouldn't see that as the better of two bad options. As has been illustrated so well over the past few years, the power of nuclear weapons is a paradox. It allows you to make the ultimate threat. But that threat isn't credible unless people believe you'll use them. Because the consequences of using them are so severe, they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. Russia's arsenal hasn't allowed it to stop a constant flow of weapons to its enemy, an enemy which has invaded and still controls a small bit of Russian territory, and which frequently carries out aerial attacks on Russian territory. Ukraine faces much more of an existential threat (Ukraine has no prospect of conquering Russia, but the reverse is a serious possibility) so a nuclear threat from Ukraine would be more credible, but it could easily still not be enough. Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
  >Putin would be backed into a corner. He'd be backed into the door marked "exit". There is no corner to trap him here. >End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike And why do you believe that Zelensky or whoever is in charge would nuke Moscow first? Do you think that, if they had say 30 nukes (plenty for a few relatively harmless demonstrations) that this would be the first target? Obviously they'd pick something that he could decide to de-escalate afterwards. >they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. You mean such as the severe threat that Ukraine has endured for a decade at this point? The war now threatens to make them functionally extinct. Many have fled and will never return, their population is reduced to something absurdly low, many of their children have been forcibly abducted to be indoctrinated or tormented/tortured. That condition you impose was pre-satisfied. >Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card. Of course not. They'd have to be used intelligently (readers: "used" does not imply detonated). It's not entirely clear to me that this would be the case with Ukraine/Zelensky. But nothing less at this point will suffice. Even if the US promised to put 150,000 troops on the ground, this wouldn't end. It would only escalate. Perhaps to that nuclear war you seem to fear.