How Russia Neutralized Ukraine’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Kyiv had requested to monitor each step of the transfer, which would ostensibly end with Russia destroying the tactical nuclear weapons. But, Skipalskiy claims, “they didn’t allow our observers to oversee this, we were just shown some building and told, ‘this is our processing facility,’ but no one was let inside so no one witnessed the claimed disposal of these warheads.”

Skipalskiy says Moscow was able to spook Washington into piling pressure on Kyiv. The Kremlin, he says, “argued that there was a lack of control and that there was the threat of nuclear terrorism. Even if there were no Ukrainian terrorists per se, they claimed that the technological situation was dangerous. As a result, the Americans helped to twist Ukraine’s arm, demanding the transfer of nuclear weapons.”

Tactical nukes were stored in facilities throughout Ukraine, especially in Crimea. In some cases, localized attempts were made to stop their transfer to Russia. “In the Ivano-Frankivsk region there was a major storage base and the civilian administration started saying that the removal was a mistake,” Skipalskiy recalls. A similar confrontation was also reported in Sambir, in western Ukraine.

“Anyone with any sense could see that nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent, a tool of security,” Skipalskiy told RFE/RL. “Many people spoke out informally, and military personnel even sent letters of concern.” But in Ukraine’s early months of independence, some military hierarchies were still directly linked to Moscow.

“Military personnel are disciplined people subordinate to their commanders. So when their officer tells them, ‘this has been coordinated with your leadership, send it all for disposal immediately,’ they simply follow orders.”

Another factor muddying the issue of tactical nuclear weapons at the time, Skipalskiy says, was the idea that had been floated suggesting that formerly Soviet militaries might be joined to form some kind of union. With the emergence of multiple new, formerly Soviet states with links to Moscow, Spikalskiy recalls, “some argued that the nuclear component needed to be centralized.”

Later, when Ukraine’s more powerful strategic nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles were targeted for destruction or removal, Skipalskiy says, “there were more organized attempts to hold onto them but the pressure and threats [to destroy or relinquish the weapons] were intense.” Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who played a leading role in the denuclearization of Ukraine, suggested in 2023 that the move was a strategic blunder in light of the war that has been waged on Ukraine since 2014.

Skipalskiy says questions today about whether Ukraine should build its own nuclear weapons capacity is pointless to talk about publicly. “No state has created nuclear weapons while broadcasting that fact,’ he says, adding, “those who grandstand and beat their chests saying, ‘we should do X and Y,’ that is not how a responsible state operates. Just look after your country’s security and be discreet about it.”

Dmytro Shurkhalo is a correspondent for RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service. This article is reprinted with permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).