> If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else.
If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion.
Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this.
If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.
And even if they'd held onto them, keeping them operational for three decades without a nuclear weapons program of their own would have been impossible. They would have had to spend a huge amount of money they didn't have to build the infrastructure to do it.
If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion.
Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this.
If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.