By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Global nuclear arsenals are expanding, reversing decades of disarmament efforts, primarily due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its disregard for the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement, where Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from world powers, proved ineffective, demonstrating the vulnerability of non-nuclear states reliant on others’ promises. Russia’s actions, including nuclear threats and the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, have eroded trust in the non-proliferation regime, leading to increased nuclear hedging by several nations. Consequently, the world faces escalating nuclear proliferation, driven by a breakdown in international security agreements and a loss of faith in the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.
Read the original article here
Ukraine trusted the West, a trust seemingly betrayed by the perceived inadequacy of the West’s response to the ongoing conflict. This perceived failure has ignited a global desire for nuclear weapons, a chilling development with far-reaching consequences. The reality that Russia’s nuclear arsenal has effectively deterred significant Western intervention in Ukraine is a stark lesson.
This very reality fuels the desire for nuclear weapons across the globe. The fates of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, leaders who relinquished their nuclear programs only to face violent ends, serve as cautionary tales. North Korea’s continued existence, in contrast, despite its nuclear arsenal, powerfully reinforces the perceived benefits of nuclear deterrence. This dynamic explains why Iran, too, remains reluctant to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The very real possibility that Ukraine will immediately pursue nuclear weapons after this war underscores this disturbing trend. America’s perceived withdrawal of its nuclear umbrella has left a void, creating a sense of vulnerability and prompting a worldwide reassessment of security strategies.
The current situation underscores the unintended consequences of past decisions. The argument that closing down nuclear power plants is shortsighted now rings true. The desire for a sense of security, however flawed, overrides any reservations surrounding nuclear energy and weapons. Democracies worldwide are now facing heightened risks, partly due to constraints imposed on their self-defense capabilities. The argument that Ukraine, South Korea, and Taiwan should seriously consider developing their own nuclear arsenals stems from a lack of trust in existing alliances and international security systems. The election of a perceived Russian asset has exacerbated the existing distrust and sense of betrayal amongst allies of Ukraine. The claim that the West failed to uphold its commitments to Ukraine is at the heart of this growing concern.
The Budapest Memorandum is often cited in this context, but its interpretation is crucial. While the Memorandum provided security assurances, it did not offer legally binding security guarantees that obligated the US or other signatories to intervene militarily in case of an invasion. This distinction is crucial, and the persistent dissemination of misleading information only adds fuel to the fire of mistrust and resentment. There are numerous valid criticisms to level at Ukraine’s allies, but falsely claiming a breach of legally binding security guarantees is not one of them. The harsh reality is that true security rests only in one’s own capabilities.
The situation in Ukraine is a stark illustration of this. Russia’s invasion, despite the Budapest Memorandum, underlines the ultimate reliance on self-defense. Even if Russia’s total conquest of Ukraine is unlikely given the extended conflict, the Ukrainian government will likely pursue nuclear weapons development for its own security. The failure to adequately support Ukraine, and perhaps even the lack of forward military deployment in Ukraine before the invasion, highlight a significant strategic lapse. This failure is a point of deep regret. The current situation appears to be a self-inflicted wound, a consequence of strategic miscalculations and a failure to adequately address the evolving geopolitical landscape.
The argument that Ukraine never truly trusted the West is also compelling. The country’s history of electing pro-Russian politicians highlights an internal political dynamic that played a significant role in the current situation. The claim that Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal under duress, without truly adequate assurances of security, is also important to consider. The absence of a robust Western response to the 2014 invasion further eroded trust. The belief that the West’s response to this conflict is insufficient fuels this dissatisfaction, giving rise to a demand for nuclear independence.
The argument that Ukraine’s decision to relinquish its nuclear weapons was a mistake, essentially inviting Russian aggression, is frequently made. The perceived betrayal and the failure of the Pax Americana to effectively protect Ukraine have fueled this belief. The absence of a consistent, strong Western response to Russian aggression, has further cemented this belief. The current situation has led to the belief that European nations need to bolster their defense capabilities, including nuclear options, in response to Russia’s aggressive behavior.
The claim that Russia’s nuclear threats have effectively constrained the West’s ability to support Ukraine is a critical element of this narrative. This dynamic is highlighted by the comparison of North Korea’s survival contrasted with the fates of countries that surrendered their nuclear programs. The argument that Ukraine should reclaim its nuclear arsenal, or that other nations should pursue their own nuclear capabilities, underscores a fundamental shift in the global security landscape. This shift has been brought about by the perceived failure of existing security alliances and agreements. The underlying belief that the only reliable source of security is one’s own nuclear arsenal is the driving force behind this alarming new global trend. The argument that the failure to adequately arm Ukraine earlier facilitated Russia’s aggressive action is also a major factor to consider in this narrative. The lack of strong decisive action earlier led to the current crisis and the rise of the need for nuclear weapons.