[ivan_gammel]

> ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to fight Russia

Oh, this is simple. Ukraine would be able to defend itself if it kept nuclear weapons. However they signed a treaty with USA, UK and Russia and gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for some security guarantees. Russia did not honor that agreement. If USA and UK fail to provide adequate support, nobody will sign such treaties again. What’s even worse, nuclear arms are becoming the only real security guarantee, so the fate of Ukraine defines the fate of nuclear non-proliferation.

[bluGill]

Ukraine couldn't have kept nuclear weapons. It needs a lot of technical expertise to do that, particularly in today's world where you only test them in simulation which means you need great ability to trust your simulations. Ukraine didn't even have the keys to use the weapons they had (Russia did) which means they needed to first rebuild each with new keys. Not that Ukraine couldn't do all that, but they just don't have the money to do that and everything else they also need to do. Nuclear weapons are an obvious first thing to go because they are only useful in a situation where you want to end the world. In almost all cases it is better to be able to defend yourself without ending the world.

[ivan_gammel]

North Korea is poorer country with less resources, yet they manage to work on their own nuclear program. It is not impossible task, just a matter of priorities. And it’s a really good deterrent.

[snovv_crash]

Ukraine built those nuclear weapons.

[ivan_gammel]

No. It was Soviet Union. Most part of the nuclear program was done in what is modern Russia.