From Third Largest Nuclear Power to War-Torn Nation: Ukraine’s Journey
Mohd Naushad | Mar 02, 2025, 14:49 IST
Ukraine once held the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal but gave it up in exchange for security assurances under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Decades later, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion exposed the fragility of these promises. As Ukraine fights for sovereignty, recent tensions between President Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Trump further complicate its struggle. This article explores Ukraine’s nuclear past, its ongoing war, and the global stakes of its security dilemma.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union began around early 1990 and ended within a short time. Ukraine ended up having the third biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, which was about 1,700 nuclear warheads with delivery systems. It comprised intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as strategic bombers located on the territory of Ukraine. But these missiles were under operational control of Russia and there was not much infrastructure in Ukraine to maintain or deploy these systems independently.
Eager to establish itself as a sovereign nation committed to global peace and security, Ukraine declared its intention to become a non-nuclear state. This commitment was formalized through several key agreements:
Lisbon Protocol (1992): Ukraine agreed to adhere to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) as a non-nuclear weapon state, committing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons on its soil.
Budapest Memorandum (1994): In exchange for its denuclearization, Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. These assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the country.
By 1996, Ukraine had fulfilled all its committments, transferring all nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement and acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
Despite the assurance, in 2014, Ukraine was vulnerable when Russia annexed Crimea, which was a clear breach of the Budapest Memorandum. This was followed by the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine which put international condemnation into words and raised questions about the validity of security assurances without their real enforcement mechanism.
The situation escalated further in 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale assault on Ukraine, knocking the whole world security architecture off-balance and triggering some controversies around nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation. Certain schools of thought even posited that Ukraine had unknowingly endangered itself by foregoing its nuclear arsenal, in contrast, other arguments indicated such a move would have been logistically and politically impossible to sustain.
There has been much tension lately between Ukraine and the allies. A significant event happened at the White House when U.S. President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the meeting, which was supposed to ratify a minerals deal and outline steps toward a ceasefire with Russia, the parties could not establish ground and ended up clashing. President Trump accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III," effectively putting an end to the proposed arrangement. Vice president JD Vance also condemned Zelenskyy on his stance, leading to speculation about the future of U.S. military support for Ukraine.
This diplomatic fallout has had significant repercussions:
These events underscore the complexities of international diplomacy and the challenges Ukraine faces in securing its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The erosion of previously established security assurances has led to a precarious security environment, prompting discussions about the need for more robust and enforceable international agreements.
Ukraine's journey from inheriting a vast nuclear arsenal to becoming a non-nuclear state exemplifies its commitment to global non-proliferation norms. However, the subsequent violations of its sovereignty have highlighted the limitations of security assurances without binding enforcement mechanisms. As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, Ukraine's experience serves as a poignant reminder of the need for resilient and reliable international security frameworks to protect nations' sovereignty and promote global stability.
Eager to establish itself as a sovereign nation committed to global peace and security, Ukraine declared its intention to become a non-nuclear state. This commitment was formalized through several key agreements:
Lisbon Protocol (1992): Ukraine agreed to adhere to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) as a non-nuclear weapon state, committing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons on its soil.
Budapest Memorandum (1994): In exchange for its denuclearization, Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. These assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the country.
By 1996, Ukraine had fulfilled all its committments, transferring all nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement and acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
Despite the assurance, in 2014, Ukraine was vulnerable when Russia annexed Crimea, which was a clear breach of the Budapest Memorandum. This was followed by the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine which put international condemnation into words and raised questions about the validity of security assurances without their real enforcement mechanism.
The situation escalated further in 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale assault on Ukraine, knocking the whole world security architecture off-balance and triggering some controversies around nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation. Certain schools of thought even posited that Ukraine had unknowingly endangered itself by foregoing its nuclear arsenal, in contrast, other arguments indicated such a move would have been logistically and politically impossible to sustain.
There has been much tension lately between Ukraine and the allies. A significant event happened at the White House when U.S. President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the meeting, which was supposed to ratify a minerals deal and outline steps toward a ceasefire with Russia, the parties could not establish ground and ended up clashing. President Trump accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III," effectively putting an end to the proposed arrangement. Vice president JD Vance also condemned Zelenskyy on his stance, leading to speculation about the future of U.S. military support for Ukraine.
This diplomatic fallout has had significant repercussions:
- Strained
U.S.-Ukraine Relations : The abrupt end to the White House meeting has cast doubt on the stability of the alliance between the two nations. The potential withdrawal of U.S. military aid could severely impact Ukraine's defense capabilities amid ongoing conflicts.
- European Support: In the wake of the U.S.-Ukraine discord, European leaders have expressed strong support for Ukraine. They condemned President Trump's treatment of Zelenskyy and reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Russian Reaction: Russia has responded with satisfaction to the discord between the U.S. and Ukraine. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev described Zelenskyy's treatment as a proper rebuke, highlighting the geopolitical implications of the strained relations.
These events underscore the complexities of international diplomacy and the challenges Ukraine faces in securing its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The erosion of previously established security assurances has led to a precarious security environment, prompting discussions about the need for more robust and enforceable international agreements.
Ukraine's journey from inheriting a vast nuclear arsenal to becoming a non-nuclear state exemplifies its commitment to global non-proliferation norms. However, the subsequent violations of its sovereignty have highlighted the limitations of security assurances without binding enforcement mechanisms. As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, Ukraine's experience serves as a poignant reminder of the need for resilient and reliable international security frameworks to protect nations' sovereignty and promote global stability.