Ukraine found itself in possession of the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This massive stockpile included about 1900 strategic nuclear warheads and a significant number of tactical nuclear weapons. However, due to a combination of political, economic, and security considerations, it decided to relinquish its entire arsenal and give up its entire nuclear capabilities.
The Nuclear Disarmament of Ukraine: Reasons Ukraine Gave up Its Nuclear Arsenal
Absence of Actual Operational Control
The country might have had inherited nuclear weapons stationed on its territory but it did not have the operational required to deploy them. The launch codes and command systems remained in the hands of the Russian Federation. This rendered Ukraine incapable of using its nuclear arsenal independently. An attempt to establish a full nuclear capability via operational control would have necessitated significant technological and financial resources. Hence, for a recently established independent country, this effort is impractical.
Particular Economic Constraints
It is also worth noting that the early 1990s marked a period of economic turmoil for Ukraine. The transition from a centrally planned socialist economy to an economic system based on free markets proved highly challenging. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal would have imposed an unsustainable financial burden because the costs associated with modernizing, securing, and maintaining nuclear weapons were prohibitively high. The country also lacked the required infrastructure to sustain such an effort without extensive foreign assistance.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Efforts
Ukraine faced substantial international pressure. The United States has promoted nuclear non-proliferation across the world. Russia also urged former Soviet Union members to give up their nuclear arsenal. The global community was committed to nuclear disarmament. It is also worth mentioning that the presence of nuclear weapons in recently established independent states was considered a destabilizing factor. Western nations viewed the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine as a needed step in ensuring peace after the Cold War.
Budapest Memorandum Assurances
The country formally agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances in 1994. The Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, committed the signatories to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This memorandum is not a legally binding security guarantee but it was intended to provide Ukraine with protection against external aggressors. However, following the Russia-Ukraine War, the effectiveness of this assurance has been debated.
Notable Implications: A Supposedly Strategic Decision Shaped by Political and Economic Realities
The U.S. played a leading role in persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for several guarantees. For example, in addition to establishing a formal diplomatic relationship, it provided financial assistance through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which facilitated the dismantling of nuclear warheads and the destruction of missile silos. Russia, seeking to maintain its dominance as the primary nuclear power of the former Soviet Union, also pushed for its nuclear disarmament. The United Kingdom, as a co-signatory of the Budapest Memorandum, supported the process and advocated for the integration of Ukraine into the global security framework.
Hence, by foregoing its nuclear arsenal, Ukraine secured diplomatic recognition and strengthened its relationships with Western nations. It also received financial aid to assist with the transition and the dismantling process. However, based on recent developments, the security assurances provided under the Budapest Memorandum proved to be inadequate in preventing Russian military aggression in subsequent years. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine under Vladimir Putin raised questions about the credibility of non-binding security commitments in international diplomacy. Observers have argued that Ukraine was merely pressured by international superpowers.