I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative. I take pride in being an independent thinker and am not registered with any political party. Some people claim that independents secretly favor one party, and perhaps that’s true for me, considering the last Democratic candidate I supported was Bill Clinton. While his presidency had its controversial moments, such as the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I valued his administration for its strong economy and lack of support for “woke” policies.

I must address some fellow Trump supporters who oppose supporting Ukraine against Russia’s aggression. Many of them cite fears that Vladimir Putin, the so-called “boogeyman,” might start a nuclear war. Let’s be clear: he will not. Could certain extreme scenarios push Putin to consider nuclear war? Yes—such as NATO or other countries trying to invade Russia’s territory. But this is not what’s happening. NATO countries, by providing limited support to Ukraine, are pressuring Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine. No one is attempting to invade Russia.

Putin convincing his generals, the FSB, or the Russian population to start a nuclear war under the pretext of defending Russia’s sovereignty would be nearly impossible. He would also have to explain the likelihood of nuclear retaliation, which would annihilate Russia as well. Nuclear wars are two-way streets, and no rational leader, including Putin, would risk mutual destruction. He isn’t a suicidal bomber; he’s a leader who wants to live and enjoy the billions of dollars he has stolen from the Russian people. He likely plans to spend that money in countries where he won’t face arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC)—certainly not in Europe.

Some Trump supporters argue that the dissolution of the USSR included an agreement that Ukraine would never join NATO. This is false. While there has always been diplomatic pressure against Ukraine’s NATO membership, there was no formal agreement preventing it. What does exist is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed in 1994. Under this agreement, Ukraine gave up its massive nuclear arsenal—the third largest in the world at the time—in exchange for assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected. Specifically, Russia agreed not to violate Ukraine’s borders or use force against it. However, Russia broke this agreement by invading Crimea in 2014 and again in 2022. Meanwhile, the U.S. and the U.K. have failed to take sufficient action to uphold the memorandum’s assurances.

This failure highlights a critical issue: Why should countries trust international agreements if those who promise protection fail to deliver? They shouldn’t. That’s why what’s happening in Ukraine is one of the reasons more countries may seek to develop nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Nations should not entrust their security to others; history shows that such arrangements often lead to betrayal. If I were a leader, I would ensure my country had nuclear capabilities as a deterrent.

We can criticize countries like North Korea and Iran, but they understand this principle. Once a nation has nuclear weapons, it becomes untouchable. Japan, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, and Germany, for example, should consider pursuing nuclear capabilities. In Germany’s case, agreements such as the Post-WWII demilitarization policies and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) currently prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. However, if Germany really decided to pursue nuclear capabilities, no one would truly enforce these agreements. Ultimately, every country must act in its best interest to ensure its security.

History shows that nuclear weapons deter full-scale wars. Even countries with longstanding conflicts, like India and Pakistan, have avoided large-scale war despite having nuclear arsenals. Nuclear weapons, paradoxically, have proven to be a force for maintaining peace.

By Luis de Andrade