At the end of World War II, the third largest nuclear power on the planet was not the United Kingdom, France or China, but Ukraine. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1991, the newly independent nation would inherit around 3,000 nuclear weapons left by Moscow on its territory.​
Three decades later, Ukraine is completely denuclearized. And the issue comes back to the fore now that the country finds itself in a delicate position after the territorial invasion led by the Kremlin, which threatens to react to any attempt to interfere by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) powers in the confrontation.
But what has happened in recent decades to make Ukraine go from one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers to a country invaded by its biggest neighbor?
Furthermore, would the presence of these weapons on Ukrainian territory have helped to prevent the invasion? Is there a risk of nuclear conflict in the current war? And finally, has Ukraine tried to possess nuclear weapons, as Russia accuses?
AGREEMENT IN BUDAPEST
In the 1990s, Ukraine decided to give up the nuclear weapons left on its territory in exchange for security and recognition as an independent country. Everything was agreed through the Budapest Memorandum, an agreement signed between the Ukrainian government, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States after the end of the USSR.
In the agreement signed in 1994 in the Hungarian capital, Ukraine pledged to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to return the warheads left on its territory to Moscow.
“With the end of the USSR, part of the Soviet nuclear weapons stockpile was left behind in several Eastern European countries, and there was a concern in the West that they could be lost or misused, posing a risk to Europe”, says Vicente Ferraro Jr., political scientist and researcher at the Asian Studies Laboratory at the University of São Paulo (USP).
In exchange for the denuclearization of Kiev, the governments of Russia, the US and the UK pledged to “respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” and to “refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.
The prerogatives were very important for the Ukrainian government at that time, as the country only gained its definitive independence in 1991 and was still struggling for international recognition after the Soviet era.
By 1996, Kiev had already returned all Soviet weapons left on its territory. The memorandum was also signed by Belarus and Kazakhstan, with the same conditions accorded to the Kiev government.
‘NO WEAPONS AND NO SECURITY’
Ukraine alleges that Russia first breached the Memorandum in 2014, when it invaded and annexed Crimea, the region in the east of the country where the Russian naval base at Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet are located.
The Ukrainian government also says that the conditions of the agreement were also violated when the Kremlin started to support separatist groups that lead rebellions in the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, on the border with Russia. The conflict in the region has already left more than 14,000 dead.
Since the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory materialized in 2022, the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has decided to invoke the Budapest Memorandum once again.
“Ukraine has received security guarantees after abandoning the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. We no longer have these weapons, but we also have no security,” Zelensky said in a speech on Saturday (19). “Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the signatory states of the Budapest Memorandum, but to no avail. Today, Ukraine will do so for the fourth time. For one last time.”
There was no time for any consultation, and the invasion came to fruition on Thursday, with attacks on Ukrainian military infrastructure across the country and Russian convoys arriving from all directions.
After the Ukrainian leader’s speech on the Memorandum, Russian President Vladimir Putin still proceeded to use Zelensky’s words to justify his actions.
Putin said in a speech in Moscow on Monday that Ukraine was leaving the pact with the intention of developing a nuclear arsenal with US assistance. According to him, the country was planning aggressive actions and, therefore, posed a much greater risk to the Russian population.
“Putin’s statements are totally false. There is no interest on the part of the US to arm or see Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons”, says Alexander Lanoszka, professor of international relations at the University of Waterloo (Canada) and an expert in nuclear security.
‘ROMANTIC AND PREMATURE’ DECISION
Even before the Memorandum was signed in Budapest, members of the Ukrainian political elite and experts in international politics already predicted the possibility of disrespect for the agreement by one of the signatories.
Volodymyr Tolubko, a former military commander who was elected to the Ukrainian parliament, argued at a legislature session in 1992 that the idea of ​​Ukraine fully denuclearizing in exchange for the promise of security was “romantic and premature”.
According to him, the country should keep at least some of the Soviet warheads, which would serve to “deter any aggressor”.
With the latest Russian invasion, the debate has resurfaced, with government officials and political analysts arguing that Ukraine could have avoided the incursion had it had nuclear weapons at its disposal.
Ferraro Jr., from USP, explains that, in fact, there is a belief among some nations that a nuclear arsenal can be useful to deter foreign attacks.
“There is a concept defended by some in the area of ​​international relations called nuclear deterrence or nuclear peace. According to him, countries with a nuclear arsenal are less at risk, not because they can actually use their weapons, but because they use them as a guarantee or threat against any attempt attack”, he says. “Adherents of these ideas often use the example of the Cold War to base their arguments, because at that time the US and Russia never had a direct conflict and stopped at threats.”
Specialists heard by BBC News Brazil warn, however, that the presence of nuclear weapons is far from representing a guarantee or a feeling of peace.
“Conflicts involving nuclear powers are always more dangerous and tense, as is the case with the clash between Pakistan and India that has dragged on for years,” says Ferraro Jr.
‘POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL COSTS’
For Lanoszka, from the University of Waterloo, the arguments used by the Ukrainian elite do not make sense because Kiev never had control of the weapons installed in its territory after the Second World War.
“Ukraine only had physical control of these weapons, but not operational ones. They didn’t have the access codes and the critical details to operate them, something that, in fact, could make their use even more dangerous”, says the researcher. .
Andrew Futter, professor of international politics at the University of Leicester (United Kingdom), also points out that maintaining the arsenal in Kiev could mean future risks.
“Although Ukraine now has a nuclear power industry, turning it into a nuclear weapons program would incur significant political and financial costs,” he says.
IS THERE A RISK OF A NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION?
Although Kiev has completely denuclearized, fears of nuclear confrontation have loomed over Europe since Russian forces invaded Ukraine’s borders.
Putin has already made it clear in his speeches that he will respond aggressively if any of the members of NATO, a military alliance headed by the United States and Europe’s greatest powers, decides to interfere in the confrontation in favor of Ukraine. In addition, he put Russia’s strategic nuclear force on “special alert”, the highest level.,
In conversation with military officials, the Russian president said global powers had taken “hostile actions” towards Russia and imposed “illegitimate sanctions”. Switching to alert status probably makes it easier to launch weapons more quickly, but that doesn’t mean there is any real intention to use them.
But according to experts in nuclear security and policy, there is no reason to panic at the moment. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has already said he has no troops in Ukraine and no plans to send them to the country. For him, Putin’s order on nuclear weapons is “dangerous” and “irresponsible”. A similar position was expressed by the US government and the European Union.
So far, it seems, the military alliance would only consider military intervention in the event of a Russian threat against one of its member states. Under Article 5 of NATO, the organization is obligated to defend any member state that is attacked.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, although it has said it wants to join the military alliance – something Putin is determined to stop and uses as one of his justifications for military action on Ukrainian territory.
“Putin said that any outside interference in the conflict, or any action against Russia, would generate a strong response. Between the lines, there is a nuclear threat,” says Lanoszka. “But there is a common interest on all sides to restrict this conflict to Ukraine. So I would be very surprised if nuclear weapons were used at this time.”
According to Ferraro Jr., even in the event of a Russian attack against other former Soviet republics that are now part of NATO, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, it is possible that the two sides would prefer to minimize the risks. “Just as the West and NATO avoid direct conflict in Ukraine, Russia would also avoid confrontation in the rest of Eastern Europe,” he says.
For Futter, there is also no indication that Moscow intends to use its nuclear weapons against Ukraine. “I don’t see any reason why Moscow would use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Not only because any radioactive material so close to their border could be dangerous, but also because they probably don’t want to destroy the country and the Ukrainian population, as their plan seems be to incorporate the territory into Russia.”
Finally, Larlecianne Piccolli, a researcher specializing in strategic weapons and Russia’s security and defense policy and director of the South American Institute of Policy and Strategy (Isape), wrote on her Twitter profile that Putin’s elevation of the alert is aimed primarily at intimidate Ukraine and force it to the negotiating table, something that is already underway. But the terms under negotiation have not yet been officially disclosed.
