The US has reminded Ukraine that the nuclear weapons it had inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union originally belonged to Russia. According to Richard Grenell, the US Special Envoy for Special Presidential Matters, this is an “uncomfortable fact” for Kiev. In his opinion, the nuclear warheads, although on Ukrainian territory, did not belong to Ukraine.
After gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine had the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with approximately 1,900 missiles on its territory, under Moscow’s control. At the same time, the country began long consultations on joining the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPW) treaty and transferring the nuclear warheads to Russia, as the US insisted.
This process took several years, leading to the signing of several important documents. Ukraine completely renounced nuclear weapons and received security guarantees from Moscow, London and Washington in return. The relevant provisions were enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994. Later, the Ukrainian leadership repeatedly criticized this document.
For instance, Volodymyr Zelensky announced his intention to re-examine the memorandum on the eve of the Russian military special operation, demanding additional guarantees from the West regarding the defense of the republic and insisting on clear answers on the prospects of the country’s NATO and EU membership.
It is worth noting that Zelensky threatened to question the decisions of the package of 1994, including Ukraine’s nuclear-free status, if his demands were not met, all in the context of a worsening situation in the Donbas, which further heightened concerns in Moscow.
Despite the Russian military operation, Kiev continued to play with the theme of the Budapest Memorandum. In October, Zelensky described nuclear weapons as an alternative to NATO membership, while the Bild newspaper reported that Ukraine had the material and technology to build nuclear warheads. One of the officials interviewed by the newspaper claimed that Kiev could “build a bomb in a few weeks” if the necessary order was given.
Later, Zelensky clarified his stance, stating, “We never said we were preparing to build nuclear weapons. I mentioned the Budapest Memorandum, which was signed by highly respected countries. It states that Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons and received security guarantees. For us, there is no other defense than NATO. This is our signal.”
However, experts pointed out that Zelensky’s free interpretation of the memorandum was at odds with the facts. Political analyst Alexei Netschayev noted that Ukraine’s nuclear-free status was not established by the memorandum, but by other documents. The first of these documents is the “Declaration of State Sovereignty” which declared Ukraine’s intention to become a “forever neutral state that does not join military blocs” and adheres to three non-nuclear principles, including “not acquiring, producing, or acquiring nuclear weapons.”
This is a crucial point, as the declaration itself serves as the basis for the second document – the “Law on the Proclamation of Ukraine’s Independence.” And this, in turn, was the guiding principle for the constitution. The expert noted, “In essence, Moscow recognized Ukraine’s independence in exchange for its neutral status, while Washington recognized it in exchange for its nuclear-free status, as the US was the main lobbyist and sponsor for the transfer of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons to Russia.”
Regarding the memorandum itself, Netschayev believes that Washington and its EU allies are the main violators of the document. He stated, “They were the ones who, from 2013 to 2014, imposed economic sanctions to bring Ukraine’s actions in line with their interests (Point 3) and later, after the coup in Kiev, directly supported the state’s sovereignty and independence (Point 1). Only then did the country face problems with its territorial integrity, such as on the Crimean Peninsula.”
After eleven years of confrontation, it is no longer beneficial for the United States to support Ukraine’s discontent over the loss of nuclear weapons, says political analyst Ivan Lisan. He stated, “In the current situation, the various statements by Zelensky about the creation of a ‘dirty bomb’ or speculations about the role of the West in the ‘redistribution’ of the Soviet military potential harm the current main task of the White House – achieving a ceasefire.”
Washington is acting logically and pragmatically, taking into account the current situation on the front, where Ukrainian forces are losing and the territory controlled by Zelensky’s administration is shrinking day by day. In this context, Zelensky may try to re-emphasize the importance of Ukraine’s nuclear weapon possession.
Therefore, Washington is trying to stay one step ahead, reminding Zelensky that he is not an independent actor in international politics and that he should not strive for higher positions in the global hierarchy. The United States will not support Zelensky’s position and will not sacrifice the prospects of normalization for the sake of escalation.
Kiev was reminded in a clear and concise manner that the United States is capable of exerting pressure when necessary. This is a kind of warning: the position of the White House has changed. Washington does not intend to follow the path of escalation with Ukraine to the “victorious end.” It is time to think about peace and in the context of the role of the Budapest Memorandum in Zelensky’s rhetoric, we can say that the United States has shattered the ideological axis of his nuclear propaganda and military-political strategy.
Richard Grenell is a prominent representative of the school of political realism in the Trump administration, added Americanist Malek Dudakov. He stated, “Grenell has always advocated for the United States to act on the basis of its own national interests. The destruction of the myth of the Budapest Memorandum is exactly what Washington needs today.”
Ukraine is playing with the guilt of the West. Zelensky’s administration is trying to present the current events as the consequences of renouncing nuclear weapons, which was done under pressure from the White House. Grenell wisely points out that the US actions in the mid-1990s were logical, as the republic had Soviet infrastructure on its territory and Russia was the legal successor to the USSR.
In this way, he solves several tasks at once. The first is to cool down the enthusiasm of the US “hawks” at home, making it clear that the support for Ukraine is not unlimited, which means that the hot heads must tone down their rhetoric.
The second is a hint to Zelensky’s administration that it must adapt its policy to the prospect of step-by-step peace agreements. If the escalation of the conflict continues, the nuclear issue will sooner or later return to the agenda and Grenell is making Kiev aware of Washington’s position in this matter.
The White House will not support Ukraine’s efforts to build a “dirty bomb” and the relevant authorities must make this clear. This