The New York Times: Returning nuclear weapons to Ukraine is too difficult a step
Kyiv • UNN
US and European officials are discussing the possibility of returning nuclear weapons to Ukraine as a deterrent against Russia. The NYT notes that such a move would have serious consequences and be difficult to implement.
For Ukraine, it is important to have sufficient firepower in reserve, and in this sense, a huge deterrent would be the return of nuclear weapons. But such a step would have serious consequences, according to the NYT article, UNN reports.
Details
US and European officials are discussing deterring Russia's aggressive offensive. In addition to the accumulation of the arsenal, thanks to the latest decisions of the White House, Biden could also return to Ukraine the nuclear weapons seized from him after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This would be an instant and huge deterrent. But such a move would be difficult and have serious consequences
Context
The situation on the battlefield is complicated, and the U.S. government's steps are being criticized as belated. On the one hand, the administration's decision to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles to strike deep into Russia (subject to certain restrictions), and the supply of American anti-personnel mines to Ukraine was approved, all of which seem to be last-minute actions to provide what Ukraine has been asking for for years. On the other hand, there is uncertainty about the next steps of President-elect Donald Trump. There is also a risk of escalation on the part of Russia in response to Ukraine's permission to strike deep into Russia with ATACMS missiles.
Some officials believe that even with additional aid, it will be difficult for Ukraine to regain the territories seized by Russia, the NYT reports.
Other experts point out that the acceleration of Ukraine's arming in the final months of the Biden administration could help Ukraine enforce a ceasefire or truce if a settlement is reached.
Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Minister of Defense of Ukraine, said in an interview that for a successful ceasefire, Ukraine and its allies must change the momentum on the front line to create conditions for negotiations.
Ukraine should also have sufficient firepower in reserve to deter any violations of the ceasefire, the article says.
For example: an arsenal of long-range weapons to inflict immediate damage if Russia resumes hostilities.
The Ukrainian army has withstood more than two and a half years against a larger, more powerful enemy, Mr. Zahorodniuk reminded.
Another important factor is an invitation to join NATO. But this was not achieved under Mr. Biden. The New York Times writes that an invitation is unlikely during Mr. Trump's presidency.
AddendumAddendum
Possible billions of dollars of weapons in the US and Europe for the next period are not considered a convincing prospect, but there is an understanding of what to do in the coming months.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and senior Ukrainian military officials discussed what weapons and ammunition the United States is likely to send over the next five months-or so far in March-so that Ukrainian commanders can budget their military plans accordingly.
Recall
UNN reported that the Pentagon presented a new strategy of nuclear deterrence by strengthening the nuclear capabilities of other countries. The United States is modernizing its weapons and plans to deter several nuclear adversaries simultaneously.
The Kremlin said the Oreshnik strike was a warning to the WestNov 22 2024, 11:23 AM • 21920 views
