Who blew off Ukraine's nuclear weapons? And why Zelenskyy has nothing to do with it

The fire was further fueled by a publication from Bild, where author Julian Röpcke referenced a statement by a high-ranking Ukrainian official. According to this official, Ukraine would not accept a second Russian military offensive on Kyiv and, in that case, Ukraine would restore its nuclear arsenal, which the country voluntarily gave up in the 1990s during the signing of the Budapest Memorandum.

“We have the materials, we have the knowledge. If an order is given, it would only take a few weeks to produce the first bomb,” warned the anonymous official.

It is obvious that the person speaking to the German journalist is certainly not a physicist. If you look at discussions among actual scientists, the most optimistic estimate is around six months and a billion dollars. A more realistic forecast suggests up to 10 years and several billion.

"A separate question is where to obtain enriched uranium. The last of it was handed over by then-president Viktor Yanukovych in April 2010. These final 50 kilograms were ceremoniously sent to Russia in December of that year, where they were supposed to be processed in such a way that it would not fall into "dangerous hands." Funny, given the current regular threats by Russia to strike Western capitals with nuclear weapons."

In a joint statement, Yanukovych and Obama noted that the U.S. president welcomed Ukraine’s decision to rid itself of all stocks of highly enriched uranium.

“President Obama acknowledged Ukraine’s unique contribution to nuclear disarmament and assured that the security guarantees provided under the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine from December 5, 1994, remain in force,” the statement emphasized.

Thus, when Zelenskyy sought arguments in Brussels to encourage the IMF and other entities to more actively support Ukraine, the mention of the Budapest Memorandum came into play, reminding the West how Ukraine gave up its weapons but received only modest security guarantees.

“Which of these great countries (signatories of the Budapest Memorandum), all nuclear states, have suffered? All of them? No, only one—Ukraine. Who gave up nuclear weapons? All of them? One—Ukraine. Who is fighting today? Ukraine. In a conversation with Donald Trump, I told him: 'So, what is our way out? Either Ukraine gets nuclear weapons—and then we will have protection. Or we need some kind of alliance. Apart from NATO, we currently don’t know of any effective alliances,'” the president said in desperation in Brussels.

Last year, the U.S. public research organization National Security Archive, at Washington University, declassified an interesting U.S. government document from January 1994.

Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, told his American counterpart, Bill Clinton, in 1994 that “there is no alternative to nuclear disarmament” and complained about Ukrainian nationalists who were "resisting."

“We have nationalists who oppose the president on the nuclear weapons issue. There aren’t many of them, but they must not be allowed to grow. They are ready to take reckless actions. They exploit the situation and make it worse,” Kravchuk told Clinton at Boryspil airport, according to the documents.

What did these so-called "nationalists" want?

They simply asked not to give up the weapons until Ukraine became stronger as an independent state. There are even archival videos.

But Leonid Makarovych was the smartest and tightened the Budapest noose around us. Although for such concessions, we should have at least demanded an invitation to NATO.

So, when Zelenskyy in Brussels and the British ambassador Zaluzhnyi now almost in unison mention Budapest, it's a reminder of a deal that was more of a sham.

"And yes, the blame lies both with the old political elites, who essentially gave away the third-largest nuclear arsenal for a piece of toilet paper, and with Bill Clinton, who was far more interested in young assistants' blue dresses and nude ads with Kate Moss than in the expansion of the future aggressor's arsenal—Russia."

The following Ukrainian leaders also played their part. Need we recall that in 1999, Ukraine traded 8 Tu-160 planes and 3 Tu-95MS planes for Russia's gas debt?

The corresponding deal in 1999 was signed by the prime ministers of Ukraine and Russia—Valeriy Pustovoytenko and Vladimir Putin. What Valeriy Pavlovych was thinking remains a mystery to this day, but it’s clear that Putin was already planning how to implement his "Endure, my beauty" plan.

Fortunately, before the press conference with the new NATO leader, Zelenskyy corrected himself in previous statements and clarified that they won’t be assembling any plutonium devices.

Approaching the press with Mark Rutte, the president said that the Budapest Memorandum did not protect the country from Russia’s invasion. At the same time, a nuclear "security umbrella" is not a good option.

"That’s why I said I have no alternative but NATO. That was my signal. But we are not developing nuclear weapons," the president concluded.

And thank God!

There should be only one monkey with nuclear weapons in the world — and that’s Russia. We truly know how to make Molotov cocktails in the streets and drones in kitchens. But at this moment of war, when the pampered Europeans are somewhat tired of the conflict and would love to end it by bartering off Ukrainian territories, it's better to leave the baboon role to the enemy.

Our path is to NATO—despite everything. Despite the fact that the world security system essentially died after the end of the Cold War. And despite the hypnotic effect Yeltsin’s drunken dances and Putin’s bare chest had on the West.

But it’s time to find antidotes to this poison, and to find our own place in the world. And let it be without nuclear weapons, but with the experience of a new type of war.

Specially for Espreso

About the author: Maryna Danyliuk-Yarmolaieva, journalist.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.