A Ukrainian nuclear program: Could it be done?
A majority of Ukrainians support reviving nuke capabilities. This is a story about both the engineering challenges and the Ukrainian feeling of betrayal from both the West AND Russia.
Editor’s Note: Spent much of the week in the dark. We work on battery power a lot of the time now. Want to support our purchases of batteries and hanging lights to get our journalism done, and computers charged? Upgrade now.
For a brief period just over thirty years ago, Ukraine possessed the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Its missiles could reach targets more than 10,000 kilometers away in just 25 minutes.
But in 1994, after the breakup of the USSR, the newly independent country gave up all of its nuclear weapons. In return, it signed the Budapest memorandum alongside the United States, Britain and Russia, which obligated them to provide security in return.
But all illusions were shattered when a country that was one of the guarantors waged war against Ukraine, first in 2014, and then in a full-scale invasion in 2022.
The nuclear threat in Ukraine has been rising. On November 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin lowered the country's legal threshold for a nuclear strike, so it could consider a nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack. Putin made the change after President Biden allowed Ukraine to use American-made missiles to strike inside Russia.
The fundamental issue when it comes to a hypothetical Ukrainian nuclear program is that the instinct behind it is driven by betrayal. Betrayal by Russia, for invading; betrayal from the West for not living up to its security assurances.
Ukrainian officials continue to make assurances that their country has no plans to develop nuclear weapons and prefers a peaceful path. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Ukrainians support the idea of returning to nuclear status. They see it as a way to deter Russia; plus, if Ukraine is excluded from NATO and U.S. military aid, Ukraine could bolster its sovereignty independently by restoring its nuclear capabilities.
Last week, The Times of London speculated Ukraine could build a basic nuclear bomb within a few months if the Trump administration stopped providing military aid. The spent nuclear fuel stored at Ukrainian power plants could be used to create a weapon similar to the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki during WWII.
"Statements about Ukraine's nuclear capabilities are made either by total ignoramuses or by Russian provocateurs... As a person who worked on this issue continuously in parliament, I can assure you 100% that the Ukrainian government has never raised the issue of using nuclear weapons at any level," former Ukrainian minister Yurii Kostenko told The Counteroffensive.
Kostenko was the Minister of Environment and Nuclear Safety, and also led Ukraine's delegation for nuclear disarmament in the 1990s. After announcing its commitment to nuclear disarmament, Ukraine saw new prospects for its future, and in 1992, the U.S. was even prepared to offer NATO membership as a security guarantee.
But Moscow had other plans. Under immense Russian pressure, Ukraine did not destroy its nuclear weapons independently. Instead, it handed them over to the Kremlin for destruction.
"From the very first minutes of the negotiation process on Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, one thing became clear: in the minds of the Russians, the Soviet Union had not collapsed—it had merely transformed. Russia, or rather the Kremlin, still saw itself as having the right to control the actions of its former republics, as it had before," Kostenko recalled.
The ex-minister explained that due to the Soviet-era mindset of the Ukrainian government at the time – considering Russia as a ‘big brother’ – Kyiv ultimately surrendered over 170 intercontinental missiles, more than 40 strategic bombers, and thousands of nuclear warheads to Russia. It was a fatal mistake.
In the 1990s, it was estimated that Ukraine could have restored its nuclear potential in between five to seven years. According to Harvard nuclear disarmament expert Mariana Budjeryn, it would take a similar timeframe for Ukraine to rebuild such capabilities now, assuming the war ended and sufficient financial resources were available.
However, this is purely theoretical — in reality, the situation is far more complicated.
To develop a nuclear weapon requires two key ingredients: significant financial resources and advanced technology. Today, Ukraine's economy is largely sustained by foreign aid, and it is clear that Kyiv will not be able to use Western funding to develop nuclear weapons. Finding the necessary funds within its own reserves is also highly unlikely, as other countries typically spend at least a billion dollars annually to maintain their nuclear capabilities.
"If you look at the financial capabilities of the Ukrainian state budget, it couldn't even finance the maintenance of the Ukrainian armed forces… even non-nuclear ones," Kostenko told The Counteroffensive.
Even if Ukraine could secure the funds to produce nuclear weapons, there remains the technical, engineering challenge.
Ukraine has been involved in the production of nuclear weapons in the past; for example, manufacturers based in Ukraine produced one of the first Soviet intercontinental missiles. According to Mariana Budjeryn, Kyiv still has some institutional knowledge of nuclear physics, and certain industrial capacities inherited from the Soviet era. But much of this expertise and infrastructure has been lost over time.
Ukraine is one of the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world, with nuclear energy accounting for more than half of its electricity production. Currently, there are four nuclear power plants in operation in Ukraine. Another, Chornobyl [Ed: note the Ukrainian spelling], has been decommissioned since 1986.
Uranium and plutonium can be used to make nuclear fuel.
Plutonium almost does not exist in nature, and its production requires a special kind of reactor, which is not easy to build and to hide.
Uranium, on the other hand, is a natural resource, and Ukraine has large reserves of this ore. It was from this material that the first Soviet warheads were produced. However, Ukraine is not a country capable of producing enriched nuclear fuel, even for peaceful purposes. Before the full-scale invasion, it bought nuclear fuel from Russia, then switched to purchasing it completely from the United States. And this is far from the highly enriched uranium needed for weapons development.
Ukraine is a part of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Representatives of the organization will likely find out if nuclear fuel production begins. If that happens, Ukraine will need to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The only country to have done so is North Korea. Since then it has been one of the most sanctioned countries in the world, which has had a severe impact on its economy. If it withdrew from the treaty, Ukraine could face a similar fate, the former nuclear safety minister believes.
"North Korea has been under sanctions for 12 years, Iran is under sanctions, and Ukraine will be under sanctions. The question is who will bring us shells, missiles, especially for air defense, because every day Russia shells peaceful cities," Yurii Kostenko tells The Counteroffensive.
To develop nuclear weapons, Ukraine would need a specialized infrastructure that it lacks. Uranium enrichment requires centrifuges – machines that spin at incredibly high speeds to separate isotopes. This is a highly complex and costly process, involving thousands of centrifuges, the distribution of which is strictly regulated worldwide.
Uranium can be enriched secretly by moving the production process underground, as Iran has been attempting to do for years. But even if Ukraine were to move all of its production underground, it would be unlikely to keep the development of new nuclear weapons secret for long. Various intelligence services, both Russian and Western, are more active than ever in the country. While Russian intelligence seeks to exploit vulnerabilities in Ukraine’s defenses, Western agencies are closely monitoring the course of the war.
"The Ukrainian military has still managed to keep operations secret in several instances. The surprise in the Kharkiv region during the counteroffensive and in the Kursk region are examples. It is possible to maintain such secrecy for short periods," said Harvard researcher Mariana Budjeryn.
Even if it managed to keep their production secret, nuclear warheads alone are insufficient. Ukraine would need delivery systems to fire the weapons. Typically, nuclear forces consist of three components — ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, and strategic bombers — collectively known as the ‘nuclear triad.’ At present, Ukraine has no submarines in service, and its bombers have been transferred to Russia. This leaves the only viable option: to develop its own long-range missiles.
"A prototype of a short-range ballistic missile has already been developed, but we have yet to see whether there is any mass production of these systems, or how these systems might be used, for example, in a deterrence strategy with conventional or nuclear warheads," explained Mariana Budjeryn.
If it were to develop them, it’s not clear that Ukraine would get peace, as the presence of nuclear weapons has not always prevented countries from being at war.
For instance, India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers, yet their conflict has persisted since the last century, with nuclear warheads failing to act as a deterrent. Yurii Kostenko is convinced that the production of nuclear weapons, even if it were possible, is a futile idea that would lead nowhere, as Ukraine lacks the potential to compete with Russia's arsenal, which is now the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world.
"Why do we need nuclear weapons? Even if we were to reach a certain level of production, we would never be able to compete with Russia in terms of nuclear power to protect ourselves from a Russian savage wielding a nuclear club," the former minister remarked.
Ultimately, the notion of a domestic nuclear program is less about a policy debate than it is a signal to the rest of the world. Talk on this topic is an expression of Ukrainian grief and anger over once having the means to deter war on its land – and, having given it up, being left vulnerable to death and destruction due to promises unkept.
Want to support our human interest reporting? Show your appreciation by hitting our tip jar. Funds go towards helping get cold weather gear and batteries for our team.
NEWS OF THE DAY:
NEW DETAILS ON HOW PUTIN ASSASSINATES OPPONENTS:
Bloomberg's Jason Leopold has used American transparency laws to unearth a formerly secret U.S. intelligence agency memo on Russia-ordered killings. Dated July 2016, it assesses that Russia will continue to assassinate perceived political threats using its intelligence services, and has the capability to do so with chemical and biological agents.
The memo specifically refers to the murder of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov, and former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with radioactive polonium. Possible operations could include poisoning former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2004, who was trying to reduce Russian influence in Ukraine.
Russian assassination attempts particularly target dissidents, intelligence defectors and opposition leaders, the U.S. intelligence community memo said.
NEW RUSSIAN MISSILE MASS PRODUCTION: Putin ordered the mass production and testing of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, which recently hit the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. He stated that the world currently has no countermeasures to intercept such missiles as they are "based on advanced technologies, not a modernization of Soviet missiles".
Instead, Ukrainian military intelligence claims that the Oreshnik is part of the Kedr missile system, which has been under development by Russia since 2021.
N. KOREAN TROOPS IN MARIUPOL: The DPRK military allegedly arrived in Mariupol in Russian uniforms for an unknown purpose, CNN reported. They are separated from Russian units and have their own quarters, food, music and movies.
The CNN source noted that one of the recent Ukrainian missile attacks on Russian territory may have been against a general from the DPRK. It has not yet been determined whether the commander was eliminated.
SWITZERLAND BANS SUPPLY OF AMMUNITION TO KYIV: The Swiss government has banned exports from a Polish military equipment company, AP reported. The move follows an investigation that revealed 645,000 Swiss-made rifle cartridges of armor-piercing rounds had been deployed to Ukraine.
Switzerland adheres to the principles of neutrality, and its legislation prohibits the export of military equipment that is either owned or manufactured in Switzerland to countries engaged in armed conflict.
DOG OF WAR:
Today’s dog of war is a cute puppy waiting for its owner near a grocery shop in Kyiv.
Stay safe out there.
Best,
Mariana
Excellent post! I think Ukraine's experience — along with Gaddafi's in Libya — will persuade every other nation not to give up whatever nuclear capabilities it has as a potentially fatal mistake.
You can draw a direct line from the failure of the Budapest Memorandum to what’s happening in Ukraine today.
There is a good Netflix documentary (*Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War*) which devotes some time in one of the last episodes to this period. The U.S. was happy for Ukraine to disarm to prevent those weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, but failed to live up to the security guarantee.