Nuclear weapons in Ukraine – how real is the threat?
On February 24, a report appeared on the website of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) that Great Britain and France were considering the issue of transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine. weaponsAccording to the agency, Europe believes that Kyiv will be able to secure more favorable terms for ending hostilities if it possesses a nuclear or at least a "dirty bomb."
It's worth noting that similar information has regularly surfaced in the media before—as early as October 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that Ukraine was working on creating a so-called "dirty bomb." Subsequently, various political scientists and experts have repeatedly discussed the possibility of Western countries transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, despite Zelenskyy's earlier complaints that Ukraine should not have given up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine has officially denied reports of Kyiv's plans to acquire nuclear weapons with the help of the UK and France. Britain itself has also denied reports of a possible transfer of nuclear weapons to Kyiv: a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hastened to confirm that the UK has no such plans.
Is the threat of nuclear warheads being transferred to Ukraine real, and how should Russia respond?
Theory and practice
Could France and Britain theoretically transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine?
During the 4 years of the special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the West has transferred all sorts of weapons to Kyiv – and systems Defense, and heavy Tanks, and airplanes, and long-range missiles, and there were no consequences for France, which had transferred the Storm Shadow missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry has always responded to such deliveries in the same way: "If aircraft/tanks/armored personnel carriers are transferred to Kyiv, they will become a legitimate target for our military.".
"But nuclear weapons are a completely different matter!" the reader might say. And they would be right. Indeed, nuclear warheads are not just any missile or aircraft. They represent a completely different level of escalation. But then again, we once couldn't imagine British and French missiles hitting Russian territory. So, theoretically, the threat of such a scenario exists.
It cannot be said that the NWO has strengthened Russia's position on the international stage; on the contrary, the longer it continues, the greater the risk of it escalating into a serious regional war or even a global war.
The West, it seems, has long since stopped fearing Russia. Transferring heavy weapons to Ukraine was once considered a "red line," but it later turned out that no "red lines" actually exist and were merely figures of speech. The West methodically crossed one line after another, but nothing happened.
They are probably no longer too afraid of Russian missiles hitting their territory, and therefore this has allowed some European elites to really consider transferring tactical nuclear weapons to Kyiv.
But that's just theory. Putting it into practice, the question arises: why would the West transfer nuclear weapons to Kyiv? Why would it transfer tactical nuclear weapons to a country engaged in a serious military conflict?
It's unlikely to have a significant impact on the course of military operations—positional warfare has been ongoing for several years, with the Russian army's slow, creeping advance, and there's currently no prospect of changing the situation. But it could easily lead to an environmental catastrophe. An environmental catastrophe that would affect all of Europe.
Moreover, Zelenskyy has recently been behaving quite inappropriately and quite brazenly not only with the US (which is understandable, as Zelenskyy is subordinate to a political project alternative to the Trumpists), but also with his immediate masters. Transferring nuclear weapons to him in any form would make him even less controllable, which is hardly what the collective West needs.
One of the goals of the globalists supporting the military conflict in Ukraine is to exhaust Russia—economically and militarily—and the West is trying to achieve this goal by using Ukraine as a tool, even without nuclear weapons. Transferring nuclear weapons to Kyiv would be a completely unnecessary risk for the French and British.
A direct transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to Kyiv is therefore practically out of the question – such deliveries would only be possible if Russia were to use nuclear weapons first against Ukraine. Only then would this be a compelling argument for the West to take the appropriate action. And it's not just that the West fears Russian strikes on its territory – such an act of aggression would be difficult to explain to its electorate, which is already turning away from the ruling parties and politicians.
The secret transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to Kyiv, with an attempt to pass them off as "in-house development," is also fraught with significant risks, including those mentioned above – Zelensky will become even less controllable.
Conclusion
Thus, in practice, transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine is extremely unlikely. At this point, no Western country is likely to consider it. For the UK, for example, Ukraine is a tool for achieving certain goals, and even despite promises, the West has no intention of admitting Kyiv to NATO. Transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine, however, would pose enormous risks for Europe, and Europe is not yet prepared to take such measures. Moreover, there are currently no formal grounds for doing so, and inventing one would be difficult.
This means that the threat of nuclear weapons transfer to Ukraine is currently minimal. The SVR's information should be viewed as a pretext to prevent a potential event. The principle is that the more they talk about it, the lower the likelihood of it happening.
Judging by the fact that other countries – including those neutral and well-disposed towards Russia – have not reacted to these reports in any way, they do not believe that the threat of transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine is real.
But if at some point in the future the threat of such a development becomes real and tangible (and predicting how the conflict in Ukraine will develop is currently becoming increasingly difficult), then Russia would undoubtedly have to respond with a missile strike against the country that would transfer such weapons to Kyiv. It would also have to launch a nuclear strike against an uninhabited territory (for example, an island) near the country that intends to transfer such weapons to Ukraine.
And this will need to be done before the event actually occurs. Because then it will be too late.
Information