“Of course, we want to stop the war. But I said to you, with guarantees,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly told President Donald Trump during their tense February 2025 White House meeting. His request for specific security guarantees in return for a truce with Russia was seen with suspicion if not contempt. Trump characterized Ukraine’s reluctance as a barrier to “ending the war quickly,” dismissing Zelensky’s demands as stubborn. This is not only a diplomatic dispute. It is a warning sign for international security, highlighting the deadly flaws in the nuclear non-proliferation architecture and portending a future in which countries would put survival above collaboration.
Disarmed and Deceived: Ukraine’s Disarmament as a Cautionary Tale
Ukraine was praised for making a “historic sacrifice for global peace” in 1994. In return for security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum, it gave up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, which it had inherited following the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom promised to protect Ukraine against attack and to safeguard its sovereignty. Thirty years later, Russia has invaded the whole country, destabilized the Donbas, and occupied Crimea. Meanwhile, the United States hesitates to make official security pledges, and Trump has called Zelensky’s demands “naive.”
Security in return for disarmament was the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation, but this treachery has destroyed it. If a country as vitally important as Ukraine can be overrun by its guarantor, why would any state believe such assurances? Now, nations like North Korea and Iran have a twisted motivation to advance their nuclear programs. Even Saudi Arabia and South Korea, two friends of the United States, are publicly disputing the necessity of separate arsenals. It’s a clear message: A nuclear weapon is the only reliable deterrence in a world where superpowers betray their commitments.
The New Nuclear Era: Survival Over Diplomacy
The normalizing of proliferation is the second-order consequence of Ukraine’s predicament. To deter nations from developing atomic weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) used a combination of security guarantees and moral pressure for many years. That system is failing.
Take Taiwan as an example, which China is increasingly threatening. Notwithstanding U.S. promises to protect the island, domestic pressure is already mounting on Taipei’s leadership to reevaluate its non-nuclear position. Saudi Arabia, concerned about Iran’s uranium enrichment, has said that it will “match” Tehran’s capabilities in the Middle East. Meanwhile, 70% of South Koreans agreed with former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s outspoken suggestion to build nuclear weapons. These governments are sensible actors reacting to a world where security guarantees are inscribed in stone, not rogue actors. Weapons, not words, are the ultimate currency of sovereignty, as the war in Ukraine has revealed.
Global Disorder: When Alliances Become a Risk
The Zelensky-Trump conflict highlights a third, less recognized threat: the deterioration of frameworks for collective security, which goes beyond proliferation. The idea that agreements on mutual defence are unbreakable is the foundation of alliances like NATO, the U.S.-Japan alliance, and others. Smaller governments, however, are reconsidering their alternatives as Washington’s commitment falters, such as Trump’s unwillingness to guarantee Ukraine’s security.
This is not just a hypothesis. Concerned about the political unpredictability of the United Republics, Poland and the Baltic republics have started to invest in “defense autonomy,” which includes cyberwarfare capabilities and drone armies. Japan’s military expenditure has increased despite its pacifist constitution. In addition to opposing China and Russia, these actions show waning confidence in America’s readiness to jeopardize its security for others. The end outcome is a militaristic, divided world where each country becomes its sheriff.
A Path Forward? The Challenge of Rebuilding Credibility
To change this course, radical honesty is needed. First and foremost, nuclear states need to accept that disarmament is no longer viable unless security assurances are enforceable under the law. The fatal weakness of the Budapest Memorandum was its ambiguity; future accords must incorporate automatic triggers like sanctions with teeth or Ukraine joining NATO. However, the latter seems to be a far-fetched reality.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Second, the United States needs to balance its words with deeds. It is hypocritical to make fun of Zelensky’s demands while advising friends to “trust” American leadership. Washington should cease making pledges before other countries join the nuclear club if it cannot be fulfilled.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Last but not least, the world community has to face the unsettling reality that nuclear charity is passé. As seen by the disaster in Ukraine, disarmament without unwavering guarantees is suicide. The world will continue to prioritize bombs above unfulfilled promises until that changes.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Sufyan Akhlaq is an MPhil Scholar in International Relations at Punjab University, Lahore. He is a passionate and dedicated researcher with an international publication and multiple research-based articles published in reputable Pakistani journals. His work explores topics ranging from U.S. promises to Russia in the 1990s to the evolving Indo-U.S. partnership, challenging conventional narratives.