That&#x27;s fair, but I see two big problems with this.<p>First, to what degree can we say Ukraine is threatened by nuclear weapons, when we know (not because of empty promises, but just the realities of nuclear weapons) that nukes are not on the table? Would we say that Iraq or Afghanistan were threatened by nuclear weapons? I certainly wouldn&#x27;t.<p>Second, let&#x27;s say the mere possession of nukes by the attacking party does qualify as a threat. The US and UK then go to the UN Security Council and seek assistance for Ukraine. Russia has veto power there, so this will do nothing useful whatsoever. You could say that they ought to do as they promised even if it&#x27;s useless, but it would still do nothing to actually protect Ukraine.