Trump stated that he stopped a nuclear war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation — what’s wrong with the statement?

Donald Trump’s statement that he managed to prevent a nuclear confrontation between Russia and Ukraine sparked an immediate discussion among diplomats and security experts. The main reason is obvious: Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, making the very formula of confrontation seem questionable.

At the same time, there is growing concern in another direction — global mechanisms for controlling arsenals are eroding faster than new ones are emerging.

What Donald Trump talked about

The American leader mentioned several potential hotspots: India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, as well as Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The situation with the first two pairs is different, but the presence or absence of warheads does not negate the conflict. In the Israeli-Iranian dimension, the issue generally balances between official uncertainty and technological capabilities.

As for the Ukrainian direction, it primarily concerns the Russian nuclear factor and the use of threats as a tool of pressure.

A world without limits

This week, the last treaty limiting the strategic offensive arms of Moscow and Washington expired.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned: for the first time in decades, the world is effectively entering a period without mandatory caps for the largest arsenals.

The previous framework, signed back in 2010, survived pauses, mutual accusations, and inspection freezes. But formal boundaries still existed.

Now they don’t.

What this changes for Ukraine

With the disappearance of restrictions, the significance of any hint of the use or demonstration of force increases.

Moscow has already used missile launches without warheads as a political signal — not only to Kyiv but also to European capitals.

Each such episode automatically raises the stakes in negotiations.

Sources familiar with diplomatic consultations said in comments for NAnews — News for Israel | Nikk.Agency that the nuclear storyline increasingly appears alongside topics of ceasefire and territorial arrangements.

Why agreement has become more difficult

Contacts continue in Abu Dhabi, where both the war and the architecture of strategic stability are being discussed in parallel.

Even if a temporary formula is found, the level of trust is no longer what it was in past years. Mutual inspections today seem almost impossible.

According to Axios, the parties have tentatively agreed to maintain the previous limit on warheads for a short transitional period while negotiations on a new version of the agreement are ongoing.

This is not a solution. It’s a pause.

China as a new variable

Trump considers previous formats unprofitable and insists on involving Beijing.

However, China makes it clear that its potential is incomparable to that of the US and Russia, and therefore it is not obliged to participate in negotiations.

The problem is that China is currently expanding its capabilities faster than others and could increase its arsenal to a thousand units in the coming years.

What Moscow seeks

Russian diplomacy signals: if the framework is to be expanded, then the European allies of the US in NATO — the UK and France — should also be considered.

This approach potentially creates tension within the alliance and complicates Washington’s position.

Meanwhile, Ukraine finds itself in a vulnerable position — it could become part of a large exchange without having its own nuclear argument.

What’s next

Negotiations between the US and Russia continue, and the war continues in parallel.

The Kremlin uses the topic of strategic weapons as an additional lever of influence, trying to change the priorities of the American administration.

Experts believe that the focus may shift: instead of ending hostilities in Ukraine, attention will be redirected to symbolic achievements in the field of global deterrence.

Formally, this sounds like stabilization.

In fact, uncertainty only grows.