They say that wise people learn from others' mistakes, while fools learn from their own. This illustration allows for certain conclusions.The nuclear balance has long been established; disrupting it is difficult, costly, and dangerous. Only large and wealthy countries can disturb this balance, but most of them already possess nuclear weapons. And those large and wealthy ones that don’t - are democracies, and thus cannot upset the existing balance. For example, Germany. Or Poland, which would gladly buy or develop nuclear weapons, given its proximity to an aggressor. But no - it can't.Ultimately, this raises a question - if nuclear weapons are supposed to provide protection from attack, and Israel supposedly has them, then it shouldn't be afraid of Iran, and Iran should be afraid to strike them with missiles. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Because simply maintaining an air of secrecy - that's not enough."The essence of nuclear weapons is precisely in making loud declarations about them when needed - that’s what makes them effective. Like Russia has been doing for the past three years, for example. Russia’s nuclear arsenal works even without launches - for three years it has been deterring NATO and the U.S. from providing overly active support to Ukraine and has been slowing the shifting of red lines to a crawl, millimeter by millimeter. If they had moved faster, countless lives could have been saved. But unfortunately, that’s not the case."What I basically agree with is this: if we had had nuclear weapons as of 2014 - and especially by 2022 - there likely wouldn't have been a war. But not because Russia would have been afraid to attack. After all, it had already seized a neighboring country with nukes - the very one that’s now the subject of a tug-of-war between Russia and NATO over whose sphere of influence it will fall under.Rather, Russia would have spent vastly more on bribes, and Yanukovych, with nuclear weapons at his disposal, probably wouldn’t have fled the country - because the U.S. and Europe would have exerted far less pressure on him. We might have long since become a Russian satellite, like Belarus. Something like what Putin initially wanted in 2022 - to install Medvedchuk without even touching the national symbols.Because Ukraine’s nuclear weapons in 1991 were Soviet weapons - with a single controlling authority. They could only exist under those conditions. Recall the famous “Chicken Kyiv” speech by President George H. W. Bush. Yes, we truly could have kept our nukes - but only if we had united in a military alliance with Russia, allowing it to retain control over everything.Under such conditions, the U.S. would indeed have been far more hesitant to push for nuclear disarmament. But the real question is: was that what we needed?In general, as recent experience shows, nuclear weapons only work well when they’re used to intimidate. Everyone fears nukes that are waved around in the air - and no one fears the ones quietly kept in the shadows. Or those whose owners pretend they’ll never say whether they have them or not. Nuclear weapons that aren't used for threats don't offer much protection.SourceAbout the author: Volodymyr Hevko, marketer, blogger.The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.