Comment by JumpCrisscross

> stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation

Agreed. But nobody was invading Ukraine in 1994.

The weapons were seen as a security liability. In reality, they were bargaining chips.

> to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too

To be clear, Kyiv made the right decision given what they knew in 1994. Non-proliferation was in vogue. America and British security guarantees meant something.

If Kyiv knew what we know today, that the Budapest security guarantees were worthless from each of Washington, London and Moscow; that wars of conquest would be back; and that non-proliferation would be seen through the lens of regional versus global security, it would have been a bright idea to demand more before letting them go, or at least to drag out negotiations so Ukraine could study the weapons and maybe even extract some samples.

> SS-24s do not have the ability to strike targets at relatively short distances (that is, below about 2000 km)

Again, having the nukes would give Kyiv leverage. At a minimum they'd have HEU and a proven design to study.

And again, don't undervalue bullshitting in geopolitics. If Kyiv said they have a short-range nuclear missile, it would not be credible. But would it be incredible enough to green light an invasion?