Nukes Aren't the Answer for Ukraine

Even assuming that they could develop and produce a small arsenal in a short period of time, it would not provide them with the security that they seek.

Casey Michel makes the case for Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons:

But Ukraine no longer has the luxury of waiting for NATO membership. With every passing day, and especially with the reelection of Trump, the reality increasingly dawns that if we’re to guarantee Ukrainian statehood, the West must welcome Ukraine into NATO—or it must start getting ready for Ukraine to rejoin the same nuclear club it was once a part of all those years ago.

It would be an extremely bad idea for Ukraine to pursue nuclear weapons. Even assuming that they could develop and produce a small arsenal in a short period of time, it would not provide them with the security that they seek. If Moscow perceives Ukraine’s pro-Western orientation and possible NATO membership as threats, it should be obvious that it would never tolerate the creation of a Ukrainian nuclear arsenal. The Russian response to Zelensky’s trial balloon was clear that they would view any move in this direction as a provocation. Putin said, “Any step in this direction will be met with a corresponding reaction.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Zelensky has any intention of pursuing nuclear weapons, and that’s good. He made his remarks about nuclear weapons to emphasize how important he thinks NATO membership is, but he probably knows as well as anyone else that nuclear proliferation would be a costly distraction. In addition to feeding into Moscow’s worst fears, Ukraine’s pursuit of nuclear weapons would weaken its international support and put it at risk of becoming a pariah state instead.