Zelensky to NATO: Join us or Ukraine builds nuclear weapons

Zelensky to NATO: Join us or Ukraine builds nuclear weapons

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued an ultimatum to Western allies: either Ukraine joins NATO or it will be forced to regain its status as a nuclear power. He made the statement in Brussels, on the sidelines of the EU summit, and repeated it during a conversation with US presidential candidate Donald Trump. "Either Ukraine has nuclear weapons, which will then be our defense, or we must join some kind of alliance. Apart from NATO, we do not know any effective alliance today," he declared. This is not mere rhetoric: a senior Ukrainian official specializing in arms procurement stated behind closed doors that "we have the material, we have the knowledge. If the order is given, we will only need a few weeks to have the first bomb." The West, he added, should "think less about Russia's red lines and more about ours."

The nuclear blackmail Ukraine had already warned of

This revelation does not surprise those who have trinc the trail of Ukrainian warnings. Months ago, a Ukrainian official hinted to BILD and other politicians and officials that the country had the technical capacity to build a bomb within weeks. What changes now is the tone: Zelensky says it publicly, at a European summit, and frames it as a binary choice for the West. The dilemma is simple: NATO membership or return to the nuclear club.

Ukraine's recent history with nuclear weapons is a rollercoaster of figures and paradoxes. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine inherited more than 500 nuclear warheads, making it the world's third-largest nuclear power, behind Russia and the United States, and far ahead of China, France, or the UK. However, it never had real access to them: launch codes were in Moscow. As a recurring analysis holds, if they had tried to move them, they would have exploded. Ultimately, it was the United States that pressured Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to hand over that arsenal to Russia, arguing that they wanted a single nuclear nation in the region rather than five. In exchange, Ukraine agreed to respect the Russian population, something that, according to the same account, it abusa starting in 2014.

Why is Zelensky asking for nuclear weapons or NATO now?

The move is interpreted as a sign of desperation. Ukraine has demonstrated military capability that many did not expect for three years, but the attrition is evident. Western aid has become a trickle conditioned by political will, and NATO accession remains blocked by the same old antiestéticars: escalation with Russia. Zelensky is trying to force the issue with the only argument he believes can unlock the situation: if you don't protect us, we'll protect ourselves, and we know how.

Reaction in analytical circles has been swift. Some argue this is a bluff to pressure Brussels and Washington, while others believe the threat is credible because the technical capacity exists. The most optimistic calculation for Ukraine assumes that merely mentioning the bomb accelerates accession negotiations; the pessimistic scenario warns that this gamble could backfire and reinforce the Kremlin's narrative of an irrational regime.

Russia's reaction and the ghost of escalation

On the military ground, the Ukrainian nuclear threat is a double-edged sword. Russia has justified its invasion, in part, as a response to NATO expansion and the possibility that Ukraine might host Western weapons. If Kyiv took a step toward nuclear rearmament, Moscow would have an even stronger argument to intensify its offensive or justify retaliation against countries that helped Ukraine cross that line. The lingering question is what NATO would do if Ukraine dropped a bomb on Moscow: no one knows where Russian retaliation would fall, and that void is itself a factor of instability.

The most critical voices regarding Zelensky within the West itself consider such statements counterproductive. They argue that the Ukrainian president acts like a demanding partner who is never satisfied, asking for more while despising what is received, and that his strategy of constant pressure may exhaust his allies' patience. Others, however, defend that Ukraine has no other option: if the West does not offer real security guarantees, nuclear deterrence is the only card left.

The 1991 precedent: the third nuclear power that gave up its arsenal

To understand the magnitude of the gamble, it is worth remembering that Ukraine is not starting from scratch. In 1991, after the collapse of the USSR, the country found itself with an arsenal of more than 500 nuclear warheads on its territory. It was the world's third nuclear power for a brief period. But the launch codes were never in Kyiv, but in Moscow. The United States, antiestéticaring uncontrolled proliferation, pressured for those weapons to be returned to Russia. Ukraine agreed in exchange for security guarantees that it now considers worthless.

That is the context explaining Ukrainian frustration. The memory of what was and the perception of promises broken fuel the current discourse. Zelensky is not inventing a threat: he reminds everyone that they once had those weapons and gave them up trusting the word of others. Now, he says, the situation is different: they have the material and knowledge to build them again. All that is missing is the order.

What could happen now: between NATO and the bomb

The ultimatum leaves NATO in an uncomfortable position. Accepting Ukraine as a member implies assuming the risk of direct conflict with Russia, something the Alliance has carefully avoided. Rejecting it and having Ukraine fulfill its nuclear threat would open a new era of proliferation in Eastern Europe. There is no clear third way, except continuing to send weapons and money while postponing the decision.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian and international public opinion watches with a mix of unease and resignation. The war has entered a phase of attrition where victories are measured in kilometers and defeats in lives. Zelensky's nuclear gamble is, ultimately, a recognition that the conventional path is insufficient. And a warning that if the West does not make a move, Ukraine might try to make its own. Is the world prepared for a nuclear Ukraine? The answer, for now, is an uncomfortable silence.