You also need to maintain vectors, at least functioning ICBMs, which cost quite dearly. And Russia had much more ressources than Ukraine at the time, by the way.
replyUkraine absolutely had fleet of functioning ICBMs and strategic bombers. Unlike russia, Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy.
replyAnd pretty sure people who built those ICBMs and strategic bombers would have no issue maintaining them.
USA didn't pressure Ukraine into giving up nukes, at the same time bankrolling russian nuclear program for 'security' reasons.
Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy because Russia chose to assume 100% of the USSR external debt. Meanwhile, in 1998, Russia had a GDP PPP 80% higher than Ukraine.
replyThis is why usa had to bankroll russki nuclear security program?
replyIt was a non-proliferation issue, I believe? The same could have been said about the pressure for Ukrainians to renounce the nukes. I agree that in retrospect Ukraine would have been safer with nuclear weapons.
replyHowever, a lot could have happened in two decades, and Ukraine had to go through many issues typical of post-Soviet countries at the time. The risk associated with warheads being sold by generals or oligarchs was seen as a real one, see for instance:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-09/press-releases/russi...