by Andrey Bulkin
[REGNUM] Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has released new and highly controversial information indicating that Britain and France are developing plans to secretly transfer a nuclear weapon, or "dirty bomb," and its delivery systems to Ukraine.
Based on incoming intelligence, London and Paris have concluded that the development of the conflict in Ukraine "leaves no chance of achieving their much-desired victory over Russia at the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces," but their elites "are not prepared to accept defeat" and are seeking ways to reverse the situation. One such option is being considered: supplying Kyiv with a "wunderwaffe"—a nuclear device known as a "dirty bomb." This, according to the Europeans' calculations, would allow Ukraine to seek more favorable terms for ending the conflict.
According to the SVR, Britain and France are currently “actively working on resolving the issue of providing Kyiv with such weapons and the means of delivery.”
The report particularly emphasizes that Germany "wisely refused to participate in this dangerous adventure" of its NATO allies, distancing itself from it.
London and Paris recognize that implementing such plans would constitute a gross violation of international law, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and threatens to destroy the entire global system. This is why, say Russian intelligence officials, "Westerners are focusing their efforts on making Kyiv's acquisition of nuclear weapons appear to be the result of Ukrainian development."
The SVR views Kyiv's possible nuclear "strengthening" as evidence of the West's loss of a sense of reality and its readiness to take steps fraught with catastrophic consequences for all of Europe.
The Service, however, is confident that in the political, military and diplomatic circles of Great Britain and France there are “many sensible people” who understand the danger of such plans, and express confidence that “everything secret will inevitably become clear.”
WHAT IS A DIRTY BOMB?
It is worth clarifying that in the context under discussion, a "dirty bomb" refers to a radiological weapon—an explosive device in which conventional explosives (such as TNT) are combined with radioactive material.
Unlike a full-fledged atomic bomb, which uses a chain reaction-based explosion, a dirty bomb does not create a nuclear detonation: it is a conventional explosion, the purpose of which is to disperse radioactive substances over a large area.
While conventional nuclear weapons destroy their targets with a colossal shock wave, heat, and radiation, a dirty bomb is designed primarily to contaminate the area, creating panic and long-term consequences.
This is a weapon of psychological and environmental terror.
It is designed not so much for military effect at the front, but rather to intimidate the population and demonstratively violate all the explicit and implicit taboos that have developed around the nuclear issue.
GROUNDWORK FOR WESTERN PLANS
It's important to understand that London and Paris' current plans didn't arise out of nowhere—for years, Ukraine has been building an ideological and political foundation for a kind of "nuclear revenge."
Over the past few years, the topic of a possible return to nuclear status has regularly surfaced in irresponsible, and sometimes downright insane, statements by Ukrainian politicians, experts, and some Western commentators.
Even before the start of the SVO, in July 2021, David Arakhamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada, unequivocally stated on the Ukraine 24 television channel that President Leonid Kravchuk's renunciation of nuclear weapons after the signing of the Budapest Memorandum was a "mistake."
This was one of the first such direct admissions from a member of the ruling faction. Falling on the fertile soil of militaristic and nationalistic fervor, these first seeds quickly sprouted.
As early as December 2021, former Right Sector leader* Dmytro Yarosh **, who then served as assistant to the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, proposed asking the United States and Great Britain to deploy their nuclear capabilities on Ukrainian territory.
At first, such statements seemed like the personal convictions of individual radicals, rather than Kyiv's official position. However, the head of state soon addressed them directly. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at the Munich Security Conference, announced his readiness to initiate consultations within the framework of the Budapest Memorandum.
"We don't have weapons. We don't have security. But we have the right to demand a transition from appeasement to security guarantees," Zelenskyy stated, effectively calling into question previous agreements.
Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, in an interview with CBS shortly afterward, directly agreed with the idea that giving up nuclear weapons was a mistake and stated that some countries "must feel responsible" for the failure of safeguards.
It became clear that the nuclear issue was becoming a convenient diplomatic bargaining tool for Kyiv's elite. With the onset of the protracted conflict, this rhetoric took hold—Kyiv is increasingly using the issue as a means of pressure on both the West and Russia.
Verkhovna Rada deputy Oleksiy Goncharenko * openly called for negotiations on the deployment of allied nuclear weapons in Ukraine and even named a specific figure – about twenty warheads, which, in his opinion, is “sufficient,” and the sanctions for such a step “can be tolerated.”
In October 2024, at a press conference after attending a European Council meeting where he presented another "victory plan," Zelenskyy boasted about how, in a conversation with US presidential candidate Donald Trump, he blackmailed him with nuclear ambitions, justifying the need for Ukraine to join NATO.
"In a conversation with Donald Trump, I said: ''<…>Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons—and then that will be our defense. Or we must have some kind of alliance. Apart from NATO, we don't know of any effective alliances today,'' he said.
At the same time, Western media and Ukrainian think tanks began to pick up on this narrative. Publications claimed that Ukraine was capable of quickly producing a crude nuclear bomb using reactor-grade plutonium from spent fuel.
Thus, in 2024, the German publication Bild, citing an unnamed Ukrainian official, reported that, theoretically, Ukraine could create nuclear weapons within a few weeks.
"We have the material, we have the knowledge. If the order is given, it will only take us a few weeks to make the first bomb," said an anonymous source involved in arms procurement.
In November of that year, The Times wrote that Ukraine's stockpile of reactor-grade plutonium was estimated to be so high that it would be enough for hundreds of tactical nuclear warheads.
Such assessments are technically untenable, but they nonetheless fuel the idea that the possession of nuclear weapons is a matter of political decision and external assistance, rather than objective limitations.
As the situation on the front for the Ukrainian Armed Forces worsened, Ukrainian nuclear rhetoric became increasingly grotesque and hysterical.
In March 2025, Oleg Gorokhovsky, the co-founder of a Ukrainian bank, launched a "fundraiser for nuclear weapons." In the first half hour, citizens donated over two million hryvnias, after which the banker announced it was just a "joke" and that the money would be used to purchase drones.
As early as May of that year, voices in the West began to support granting Ukraine access to nuclear weapons. British Colonel Richard Camp stated that the declaration on strategic cooperation between the UK and Ukraine should include London's commitment to develop tactical nuclear weapons, which "could help Ukraine develop its own nuclear capability."
The peace talks that began in 2025 sparked a renewed "nuclear thirst" among Kyiv's political elite. A separate area of discussion centered on Kyiv's obsessive desire to deploy foreign weapons on its territory—similar to NATO's practice of "joint nuclear deployment."
In October 2025, Verkhovna Rada deputy Serhiy Sobolev proposed deploying American nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory as a security guarantee.
"The best defense is permission from the Ukrainian parliament, after all the relevant negotiations with the United States, to deploy American nuclear warheads on our territory," he said on the Novosti.Live television channel.
Former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valeriy Zaluzhny, in an article for the British press published in November 2025, explicitly stated that he sees the options for ensuring Ukraine's security as either joining NATO, deploying nuclear weapons, or deploying a large foreign military contingent.
"KYIV DID EVERYTHING ITSELF"
London and Paris want not only to circumvent international treaties, but also to absolve themselves of political responsibility.
The NPT explicitly prohibits the transfer of nuclear warheads to anyone or assistance in their development. Any open supply of even a limited number of warheads to Ukraine would mean that for the first time in decades, the two European powers would knowingly commit to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while also transferring them to an active conflict zone.
Therefore, Britain and France are not only trying to avoid legal claims but also to shift political responsibility to Kyiv in advance. In the event of a scandal, an accident, or the use of weapons, the "sovereign state of Ukraine" will formally be held responsible, while European capitals will pretend to be bystanders.
Despite the aggressive rhetoric of Kyiv politicians and nationalist leaders, the reality is this: without serious external assistance, Ukraine will not be able to quickly and covertly create even a "dirty" bomb, let alone a fully-fledged nuclear device.
Even a relatively primitive "dirty" bomb requires not only access to radioactive materials, but also technologies for handling, shielding, shaping, and delivery and detonation systems to ensure the most effective dispersal of radiation.
Yes, there are nuclear power plants and sources of radioactive isotopes on Ukrainian territory, but they are under international control, and any attempts to illegally export materials are fraught with information leaks and scandals at the IAEA level, so nothing can be done without outside assistance.
Developing a fully-fledged low-yield nuclear device requires a complex scientific and production base—radiochemical facilities for plutonium extraction or uranium reprocessing, test rigs, high-precision industry, closed research institutes, and design bureaus.
Over the decades of independence, the lion's share of the infrastructure inherited from the USSR has deteriorated, and without external funding and technology, Kyiv is no longer capable of similar improvements.
This is precisely what makes the Europeans' role so dangerous: they are willing to provide what Ukraine lacks—modern technology, components, engineering support, a media campaign. In essence, we are talking about using an economically and technologically dependent state to implement a scenario that even many Western experts warn against as a direct threat to global security.
The combination of long-standing nuclear revanchism in Kyiv's policy and London and Paris's readiness to push Ukraine to the nuclear threshold creates an extremely dangerous situation for all of Europe.
On one side of the scale is the decades-old non-proliferation regime, the balance of power, and the understanding that any nuclear or even radiological use would be a point of no return. On the other side is the desire of two European countries to prick Russia at any cost, even at the cost of turning Ukraine into a testing ground for nuclear weapons.
Such a course of action is not only short-sighted, it is downright irresponsible for states claiming to be "pillars of the democratic world," as Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov stated today. "This is a flagrant violation of all norms and principles of relevant international law," he emphasized.
By increasing Kyiv's nuclear temptation, the French and British are undermining the very foundation of international security they themselves have championed for decades. And if their plans are carried through, the consequences will be felt not only by the parties to the conflict but by all European citizens, who will find themselves hostage to someone else's nuclear adventure.