History relates that two countries were politely obliged to give up their nuclear program, which had already started, for reasons of expediency: Germany and South Africa; while three other countries, which already had nuclear weapons on their territory, albeit without the "keys" to use them, were forced to give them up: Belarus, Kazakhstan and, indeed, Ukraine.
The Budapest memorandum
The latter was not a free, so to speak, renunciation: the three former Soviet republics, together with the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom, signed the so-called Budapest Memorandum less than thirty years ago. That document confirmed that Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine became parties to the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty and effectively left their nuclear arsenal to Russia.
As we said, in exchange for the renunciation of the status, albeit theoretical, of nuclear powers they obtained geopolitical benefits: the recognition of Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders, the renunciation by Moscow of the threat or from use of force against the three former sister republics, the refusal - again on the Russian side - to use economic pressure to influence their policy, the obligation to seek immediate action by the Security Council to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine self "should become victims of an act of aggression or the subject of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used", the renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine and, ultimately, the obligation to consult on conflicts in these areas.
How did it end? Russian troops in Crimea and "unofficial" troops in Donbass are one answer.
Washington took it seriously: that's why
A bad deal? According to Steven Pifer, one of the memorandum negotiators and later US ambassador to Ukraine, implicit in the memorandum was the US promise that Ukraine would enter the realm of US strategic interests and would not be left alone in the face of a ' Russian aggression. Although Ukraine ultimately was unable to obtain the solid and legally binding security guarantees it sought, but only promises contained in a memorandum, i.e. a piece of paper, the US ensured at the time and later to the government Ukrainian that the United States takes this political commitment seriously, neither more nor less than a legally binding obligation "1. Anyone who is surprised by the reaction of London and Washington to Russian threats does not take into account how much this kind of "unofficial commitments" really count for a lot in international relations and how much, while men and scenarios change, certain "accounts" owe to end to be regulated, so as not to pass as word-of-mouthers. From this point of view, in Taipei sleep peacefully and, as the author of this article had recalled in a 'double interview with colleague Gaspardo, “Ukraine is worth Taiwan”. Only fools are amazed that things did not turn out like this in Kabul in 2021, where Americans had never made commitments of this kind and above all where it was the dissolution of the government, not the exit of Westerners, that made the difference. in 1990-91 they went in a similar way to Kuwait, where moral and political obligations, even before formal treaties and alliances, had been concluded between Washington and the ruling houses of the Gulf, in particular with that of the Al Saud.
If Kiev loses, we all lose
The fact remains that “if we want to put an end to nuclear proliferation, Ukraine must be a success story, not a lost cause. The US and Britain are now using Ukraine with defensive weapons to give it a fighting chance for survival… Any Putin victory in Ukraine could lead to a renewed global search for nuclear weapons. Unquestionable support for Ukraine could reduce this appetite to a minimum ”.
The world, that is, the leaders of the nations, is watching. "Iran and North Korea are likely to infer from Kiev's unilateral disarmament and the current predicament that they should go to the bottom with their military nuclear warheads and missile programs ... In the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine, actions or the inertia of the international community will influence future decisions in Tehran and Pyongyang. The United States, NATO and others must do what is necessary to demonstrate that a nation like Ukraine can remain sovereign even if it has renounced weapons of mass destruction "2. Is anyone surprised, then, by the activism of Washington and London? Or does Germany's attitude seem short-sighted, resigned, almost like a protectorate? It is not surprising that France is watching: it has nuclear energy, it has the strike force and it has the only armed forces in Europe that carry out a real deterrent action. Unlike the case of Berlin, which no longer has - or in the case of nuclear power plants is about to no longer have - none of this.
It does not come up with a nuclear rearmament
Finally, a question: why doesn't Ukraine launch its own nuclear weapons program? We can answer with three words: cost, time and risk. Ukraine is a uranium producer, has the necessary physical and mechanical knowledge, has the know-how missile; however, it lacks the necessary facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment and the processing of plutonium. In addition, he should also build a warhead production facility and find a way to conduct at least a couple of tests. This accumulation requires money that would have to be diverted from other military programs necessary for the defense of Ukraine and, in any case, it could not be done in a few months.
Even if Ukraine found the funds, it would not have the luxury of secrecy as Russia would likely break into a Ukrainian nuclear program and sabotage it, just as Israel is doing with Iran. If that doesn't paralyze a Ukrainian nuclear program, Russia could justify a preemptive military strike just like the Americans did in Iraq in 2003.
In conclusion, any further step by Russia against the integrity and independence of Ukraine would open the doors to nuclear rearmament of many countries that do not have the immediate pressure of a great power to prevent it: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. and perhaps Japan itself.
