We promised to not have it in return for not being invaded, so technically we are a nuclear state without any weapons present at this moment (as far as publicly known).
Since we have both technological expertise and practical means (from uranium ores to delivery systems), it’s a matter of time.
Can you point to an official document, such as voting by UN members, to put RF into security council of UN? I cannot find any. RF is not a founder of UN, so it puzzling for me, how they are able to sit permanently in Security Council. Is there an exception for RF in UN statute written somewhere?
I wondered the same thing recently. Found this legal academic analysis of the succession of member states.
The conclusion part made me think that the subject was negociated between constituant parts in the devolution treaty. However the paper does highlight that the UN is under ever more pressure for rule-based functioning and transparency, so who knows.
Personally if it were me, I'd rather try and get Russia's membership or voting rights suspended, based on the fact that article 4 states that the UN is for peace loving nations. In the current climate this has a chance of passing in the general assembly, where the veto can not be used. Russia has evoked article 41 'right of self-defense' but that seems problematic.
Another question is if you want to exclude Russia. It sets a precedent, and erodes the position of the UN if not (near-) unanimous. The previous vote had 144 out of 193 voting against Russia, with only 5 against (Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, etc)
> It looks like nobody holding their promises right now, i.e. USA, Brittain, RF, France are traitors, thus Ukraine has full right to not obey this agreement either.
No, the only traitor is Russia. Look at the actual contents of Budapest memorandum [1]. This is in summary what the parties committed to:
1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2) Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3) Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4) Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5) Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6) Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
I do not see any of these items being violated by western powers.
> RF started to prepare their citizens for such scenario already.
There actually seems to have been a promise made, back in 1991, that NATO wouldn't expand eastward beyond Germany. Somebody did some research deep and found an assurance like that in protocols, Spiegel reports
> It looks like nobody holding their promises right now, i.e. USA, Brittain, RF, France are traitors, thus Ukraine has full right to not obey this agreement either.
Nobody wants to start WW3 over Ukraine, except maybe Putin who has been left with very few options and doesn't care much about the lives of others, including his fellow Russians. The way he sees it is that he's liberating Ukraine from "nazis" and that the US has orchestrated a coup in 2014 replacing his puppet Yanukovych with their own. He has also signalled that he's ready to use the nuclear arsnal to deter anyone who interferes. What the West can do without potentially triggering WW3 is to economically cripple Russia, supply Ukraine with small arms, personnel carried anti tank and anti airplane weapons, ammo and possibly mercenaries. Any direct engagement between NATO and Russia could potentially trigger WW3 and nuclear warfare.
What you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims that Ukraine might be developing nuclear weapons. The very same false claims were in fact voiced by the Kremlin.
Ukraine is not a nuclear state as it does not have nuclear weapons.