Ukraine's Future: Nuclear Option or NATO?

The War in Ukraine is (and will be) undoubtedly defining geopolitical struggles of the 21st century. 

What began as a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia has grown into a protracted war with grave humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical consequences. The more this war drags on, the more one huge looming question appears to emerge: how Ukraine will secure its future. Out of that, one alarming possibility may be nuclear weapon development.

A Changing Political Landscape: The Return of Donald Trump

The return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in 2024 was bound to make Ukraine's security dilemma even more complex. 

His "America First" foreign policy and skepticism toward Western-backed initiatives aimed at supporting Ukraine raise serious concerns about the future of American assistance. Trump also has repeatedly called into question the utility of U.S. involvement in Ukraine throughout his campaign, consistently saying he could "end the war in 24 hours," although he's never said how. Beyond that, friendly comments he made toward Russian President Vladimir Putin have tainted a thick layer of unease in Ukrainian officials and their Western allies.

But the most perilous of all aspects of Trump's foreign policy is his potentially declaring an end to the U.S. support of Ukraine. Since the beginning of hostilities, American military support kept Ukraine capable of defending itself against the congenital aggression of Russia. 

And therein lies the danger: reduction or cessation of this support will put Ukraine in a precarious situation, forcing Kyiv to seek other means of ensuring its security.

The Nuclear Option: A Last Resort?

In these changing political weather patterns, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacted by saying, in case NATO membership is to be taken out of the equation, then Ukraine might have to search for nuclear weapons. 

A proposition that, though downplayed from above, only underlined the desperation of a situation that Ukraine finds itself in. While he signaled that Ukraine was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, he nonetheless underlined that membership in NATO remains the sole realistic option to ensure security for the long haul. But with increasing question marks over NATO membership and failure of Western countries to provide the promised security guarantees, the nuclear option remains not entirely shut.

One decision that more recently had become a growing source of frustration was the denuclearization of Ukraine in the 1990s under the so-called Budapest Memorandum. In return for giving up the world's third-biggest stockpile of nuclear arms, Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. In reality, though, as evidenced by Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued aggression in eastern Ukraine, these assurances have meant nothing. 

Today, Zelenskyy-and many Ukrainians-believe that giving up their weapons was a monumental mistake that has left the country exposed against an increasingly aggressive Russia.

Technological and Financial Problems of Nuclear Development

Technologically, there exists a base in Ukraine on which to develop nuclear weapons. 

It has a very strong nuclear infrastructure, with several functioning nuclear power plants. During the Soviet era, Ukraine hosted most of the Soviet Union's missile capacity, including the Pivdenmash factory in Dnipro, which produced ballistic missiles for nuclear warheads. This legacy left Ukraine with a kind of technical groundwork upon which, theoretically speaking, it could build a nuclear bomb within a few years.

Building more sophisticated nuclear weapons-thermonuclear bombs-would be extremely time-consuming and costly, hurdles that Ukraine could only surmount with very substantial external support. The financial cost of constructing a nuclear weapons program would be enormous, while the geopolitical consequences would be severe: for one thing, it would risk alienating Ukraine's Western allies, who are committed to non-proliferation, and could result in diplomatic isolation and sanctions.

The International Backlash: Diplomatic and Military Hazards Any step on the part of Ukraine with respect to developing nuclear weapons would automatically result in an international backlash-most certainly from Russia, with one of the largest and most advanced arsenals on the planet. 

Moscow has made it clear that it would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Ukraine and would likely take military action to prevent the development of Ukrainian nuclear capabilities. Thus, the Russian missile systems would reach Ukrainian nuclear facilities, whose destruction would become Moscow's priority.

The case of the Iranian nuclear program is instructive in that respect. Although Tehran has consistently maintained that its nuclear ambitions were peaceful, the West, under the leadership of the United States and Israel, has pursued a multi-layered strategy of secret sabotage, virus infections, and selective bombings of Iranian nuclear installations. Such an approach may be well applied to Ukraine in case it opted for a nuclear course.

A nuclear-armed Ukraine would be a profoundly destabilizing factor: It risks an arms race in Eastern Europe whereby local neighbors, above all Russia and Belarus, race to catch up with the nuclear arsenal of Ukraine. The risk of miscalculation or accidental escalation would grow, making Europe - and indeed the world - more dangerous.

The Budapest Memorandum: A Symbol of Betrayal

Today, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 stands for a synonym of betrayal in the Ukrainian security calculus. 

Indeed, under the said treaty, Ukraine had given up its atomic arsenal in return for the core security assurances by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Yet, these guarantees have proved worthless as the conflict with Russia has escalated. 

The failure of the signatories, especially Russia, to uphold their commitments has placed Ukraine in an insecure position. Indeed, the remarks by Zelenskyy on the folly of disarming in 1994 reflect the deep frustration of many Ukrainians today, for whom nuclear deterrence is the only realistic guarantor of their sovereignty.

The failure of the Budapest Memorandum also reflects the greater problem of the international non-proliferation regime. While it is a document of persuasion for disarmament and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, what has been borne out is that security guarantees which nuclear powers extend are not always to be taken seriously. 

The ongoing war in Ukraine dramatizes the risk of counting on a non-proliferation agreement to safeguard sovereignty when nuclear powers are an actor.

The Case for NATO Membership

NATO membership, for Ukraine, remains the most desirable option and one that sustains the country's security in the long run. 

Although NATO has spoken of support for Ukraine, the path towards membership is yet not certain. One of the major obstacles in the way of Ukraine's accession to NATO is a possible provocation of a wider war against Russia. Article 5 of NATO's collective defense clause commits all members to come to the defense of a country under attack, and many NATO members are very leery about a direct engagement with a nuclear-armed Russia.

Delays in Ukraine's accession process in NATO, on one hand, and shifting political dynamics in the U.S. under Trump, on the other, have put the Ukraine case in limbo. In this regard, Zelenskyy repeated an assertion by repeating that NATO membership is necessary to emphasize how desperate Kyiv is for security guarantees in an increasingly indeterminate world. 

Specifically, without membership in NATO, Ukraine is confronted with a rather alarming reality: having either to develop its own nuclear deterrent or risk falling victim to Russian aggression.

The Global Consequences of Ukraine's Choices

The dilemmas facing Ukraine-whether nuclear weapons or further membership in NATO-will have far-reaching implications not just for Ukraine and Russia but also for the whole international community at large. 

A nuclear-armed Ukraine would undermine the global non-proliferation regime, potentially triggering an avalanche of nuclear proliferation in other countries. It may escalate tensions between NATO and Russia even more, leading to possible subsequent direct military clashes with catastrophic outcomes.

This is a question for the West, whether it is ready to grant Ukraine the security guarantees for standing up, through membership in NATO or any other new framework of support. 

The partial return of Donald Trump to the White House will give more shades of uncertainty to this, while his "America First" approach is highly expected to reduce U.S. involvement in European security matters and further leave Ukraine at its isolation.

A Precarious Future

The longer the war in Ukraine lasts, the more urgent the nuclear issue grows. 

The West can stop its support for Ukraine, and Russia, though defeated, will continue with an aggressive posture. Hence, Ukraine's future is unstable; its decisions, one way or another, on a nuclear option or seeking NATO membership will have long-lasting repercussions. Its fate is not solely to be decided by itself but also by its allies and opponents.

Its decisions will seal the future of the country, as it either gains membership into NATO or chooses the perilous path of nuclear rearmament in this increasingly unsteadying world. 

The world is warily onlooker enough, knowing well that the decisions made in Kyiv will have repercussions that stretch far beyond the country's boundaries.

(AP, dpa, reuters)