Ukraine should not create nuclear weapons, since there is no alternative to NATO membership, the expert believes.

Updating the nuclear arsenal is costly, time-consuming, and not really secure. Elena Davlikanova believes that in the current situation, the creation of nuclear weapons does not bring significant benefits to Ukraine. Instead, joining NATO is a more effective way to defend against geopolitical threats.

It is difficult for Ukraine to create a “nuclear triad”, since it does not have its own navy for strategic submarines carrying nuclear missiles. Davlikanova also notes the high cost of nuclear weapons. For example, developing an intercontinental ballistic missile similar to the French M51 cost approximately 5 billion euros.

Another problem is the long process of creating a nuclear arsenal. According to Leonid Kuchma, it takes at least 10 years with adequate funding to complete the “full cycle” of nuclear construction, including delivery systems and technologies to bypass missile defenses. Davlikanova also emphasizes the political aspect. While a nuclear arsenal can serve as a deterrent to a potential external aggressor, it can also lead to diplomatic isolation and loss of material support from the West.

The analyst is considering two options for resuming a full-fledged nuclear arsenal: creating a “dirty bomb” from radioactive waste or joining NATO in the near future. She believes that Article 5 of the NATO Collective Defense Treaty can help end the war in Ukraine and prevent a dark future for the country and Europe.

President Zelensky announced two reliable ways to protect Ukraine from Russian aggression: joining NATO or creating its own nuclear weapons. However, he clarified that at the moment Ukraine has no plans to resume nuclear weapons, and simply shows how the Budapest Memorandum has not justified itself.