The Times sent tongues wagging after their report last week about a Ukrainian think tank’s proposal advising their country to accelerate the construction of crude nuclear weapons if Trump cuts off aid. This follows similar comments from Zelensky last month that he then swiftly backtracked and which were analyzed here. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denied any such intentions and Zelensky’s top advisor Mikhail Podoliak claimed that such a plan wouldn’t deter Russia even if it was successfully implemented.
The abovementioned developments were newsworthy in their own right, but it’s regrettable that other aspects of The Times’ report were drowned out by the sensationalism of this story. The present piece will therefore draw attention to three points that most folks might have missed if they didn’t read the original report and instead only relied on others to inform them of the gist about it. The significance of what was left out from this story will then be analyzed too since it’s arguably the most important part.
The first point that many missed is that the director of the think tank that produced the report claimed near the end of The Times’ article that his country is just six months away from producing its own long-range ballistic missiles, which could reach as far as 1,000 kilometers/621 miles. That could place Moscow in Ukraine’s crosshairs if such missiles are launched from west of the Dnieper or St. Petersburg if they’re launched from Chernigov Region. He might just be bluffing, but it’s still worth pointing out.
The second point is that the aforesaid director and the report’s author agreed that “should the US abandon Ukraine, Britain could honour its security obligation under the Budapest memorandum by helping Ukraine to develop a nuclear deterrent.” And finally, the author claimed that “the threshold for developing a nuclear rearmament programme would be Putin’s troops reaching the city of Pavlohrad”, after which Dnipro and Kharkov could then be captured by Russia before nukes are developed.
Pavlograd is only around 96 kilometers/60 miles from the front and directly on the highway between Pokrovsk, which Russia might soon lay siege to or capture, and Dnipro on that eponymous river’s banks. Unlike what he claimed about Kharkov, however, Russia’s capture of Pavlograd would actually make it easier to then lay siege to or capture nearby Zaporozhye to the south than that northern city. In any case, Russia’s victory in the impending Battle of Pokrovsk could lead to the collapse of the entire front.
To review, most news outlets that reported on this story didn’t mention that: 1) Ukraine claims to be just six months away from producing its own long-range ballistic missiles; 2) some in the country want the UK to help them rapidly develop nukes; and 3) they’re worried that the entire front might soon collapse. Whether any of this is true or not, it might be meant to pressure Trump into perpetuating or even escalating the conflict in order to avert Ukraine and the West’s supposedly impending strategic defeat.
This assessment is supported by a former commanding officer of the UK’s Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment who talked to Times Radio about this and was quoted in their report. He told them that “Trump will take note because the last thing we want is more nuclear proliferation and any sort of nuclear strike in Europe, be it from Ukrainians or the Russians.” The problem though is that the attention given to the think tank’s nuclear proposal might backfire if Trump feels blackmailed.
As was explained here, Trump probably really does appreciate the two parts of Zelensky’s “Victory Plan” that call for letting the West extract some of Ukraine’s alleged $10-12 trillion of critical minerals and replacing US troops in Europe with Ukrainian ones as America ‘Pivots (back) to Asia’ to contain China. Therefore, Ukraine doesn’t need to follow this carrot up with the stick of threatening to build nukes if he doesn’t agree to continue supporting it, especially not in cahoots with the British behind America’s back.
What might be much more convincing for Trump is the other two underreported parts of this story about how Ukraine is just six months away from producing its own long-range ballistic missiles but is also possibly on the brink of a catastrophic military collapse that could prevent that from happening. He reacts much better to promises and potential opportunities, not threats and blackmail, and he’s also known for his short attention span that makes him averse to reading anything other than bullet points.
For that reason, if the UK and Ukraine thought that this report might move the needle in the direction of getting Trump to perpetuate or even escalate the conflict instead of pull out as soon as possible, then they’ll probably be disappointed since he almost certainly only heard about the blackmail part. The most important part about the opportunity for Ukraine to develop its own long-range ballistic missiles if only Trump buys it more time to prevent a collapse, regardless of veracity, is likely still unknown to him.
Russia knows about it though since its media widely reported on what The Times wrote, so another way in which this attempt to pressure Trump might also backfire is if Russia demands guarantees during negotiations with the US that Ukraine won’t develop such capabilities. It’s unclear how that would work, especially since Ukraine is unlikely to let Russian inspectors travel to suspected facilities, but Moscow can’t allow Kiev to obtain and keep this technology otherwise it won’t succeed in demilitarizing Ukraine.
Russian officials have issued strong statements in response to news about the West considering giving Ukraine their long-range missiles so it would be inconsistent for them to turn a blind eye to it either domestically developing this technology or using others’ arms under the cover of them being their own. It was assessed earlier this month that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” so this latest report further adds to the already intense sense of urgency.
Provided that there’s some truth to the claim that Ukraine will develop its own long-range ballistic missiles within six months or at least by the end of next year, then Russia knows that this will be a fait accompli if it doesn’t decisively defeat its opponent by then. Likewise, this same outcome might be inevitable if Trump successfully ‘escalates to de-escalate’ to end the conflict on better terms for the US before then too, the scenario of which readers can learn more about here, here, and here.
The top takeaway from The Times’ report therefore isn’t that Ukraine might soon develop nukes with or without British assistance, which it couldn’t make any progress on without Russia detecting it as Sputnik explained here, but that Ukraine might soon build its own long-range ballistic missiles. That would likely lead to Russia having to compromise on its goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, which was one of the main reasons behind the special operation, thus possibly leading to more compromises on other goals too.
