The people of Ukraine face another year of destruction.

Their desperation has given rise to untold levels of frustration.

Bogdan Parkhomenko is among many who have lost their friends to war.

If only we had nuclear weapons,
things would have been different.

Just one would do.

But we don't. And we were invaded.

In an increasingly tense world, the most destructive weapon of all is widely touted as a deterrent.

But Ukraine abandoned nuclear weapons decades ago.

Do you think we were right to
give up nuclear arms?

I think it was a mistake.

We were attacked because
we didn't have a nuclear bomb.

If we did, we wouldn't have been
invaded by anybody.

She's not the only Ukrainian with such views.

But Bogdan's grandfather, a former education minister, begs to differ.

Many senior government officials said
it was a mistake.

But personally, I believe
it was the right choice.

Human progress and maintaining peace
are the top priorities.

But peace is a long way off.

Nukes. Are they needed, or are they not?

It's a question many Ukrainians are revisiting as they fend off Russia's invasion.

Bogdan Parkhomenko has been delivering relief supplies as a volunteer since war broke out.

He used to live in Japan until age 16.

Today, he's visiting a school in Kyiv to deliver goods from Japan.

Only about half the students attend the class.

And when the air raid siren blares out, they flee underground.

People in Japan have sent us nice things.

And I've brought them to you.

- What flavor?
- Coke? Nope. Grape!

We don't have this here.

We would really like to know
how you guys are feeling.

We don't want war.

No war.

Is there anything you want?
Anything you miss?

Peace!

Peace, kindness, fun.

I want my dad back from the battlefield.

He's fighting near Bakhmut, Kherson,
Zaporizhzhia and all over.

- Since when?
- Since the start.

Since February last year, then.
Do you see him often?

No. We talk on the phone, though.

Bogdan has another question.

What are your views on nuclear weapons?

They're evil.

Because they exterminate living things.

They empty cities, and destroy buildings.

A lifeless landscape,
where everyone is dead.

The children's teacher had been told by her father - a military officer - about the need to protect Ukraine's borders.

Do you think Ukraine was right to
give up nuclear weapons?

I think it was a mistake.

A mistake.

We were attacked because
we didn't have a nuclear bomb.

If we did, we wouldn't have been
invaded by anybody.

- Are you sure?
- Well. Yes.

Do you see us having nuclear
weapons in the future?

We want to be in Europe.

And if nuclear arms protect us from
Russia, then yes.

- So, we must get them back.
- Yes.

I'd like to ask one more question.

Do you think nuclear weapons will be
used in this war, here in Ukraine?

I don't even want to think about that.

I don't want to think anyone would
decide to destroy everything.

I'd like to think they won't be used.

And we say that to reassure the children.

Bogdan also believes Ukraine may have been better off with nuclear arms.

But that's not to say his grandfather's words don't resonate inside.

The teacher said nuclear weapons
are essential for our security.

But my grandfather said they were totally
unnecessary, even during war.

I remember his words.
It's hard to be sure.

About what is right, and what is wrong.

I'm starting to waver.

Bogdan's grandfather Volodymyr was a scientist who served as education minister during the Soviet era.

He witnessed the end of the Cold War from the inner circles of power.

Ukraine used to be part of the
Soviet Union.

Gaining independence brought me such joy.
People really wanted to be independent.

Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

And the fate of the country's nuclear arsenal was a major issue.

Moscow had deployed more than 30,000 strategic nuclear warheads across the Soviet Union.

And when the bloc split, Ukraine became the world's third largest nuclear power after Russia and the United States.

After much debate, Ukraine gave up a stockpile numbering 1,900.

Many senior government officials said
it was a mistake.

But personally, I believe
it was the right choice.

Human progress and maintaining peace
are the top priorities.

Bogdan's grandfather had not changed his view even after Russia launched the invasion.

But in June 2022, he died of a sudden stroke.

Volodymyr Parkhomenko was laid to rest, close to the young, fallen soldiers of Ukraine.

In early March, Bogdan heads east, close to the frontlines.

Kharkiv is Ukraine's second-largest city.

The street fighting is over, but the shelling does not relent.

I've come from Kyiv.

I've always wanted to visit Kharkiv,
but it was too dangerous.

I'm feeling unusually tense.

After sunset, the lights normally
come on. Not here.

It's been a while since I experienced
such pitch darkness.

Bogdan joins other volunteers he got to know through delivering supplies.

They are helping residents evacuate from war zones.

Look. See?

A bomb fragment struck here,
and then hit one of our members.

He was wearing a helmet.

So should you.

Kupiansk is only a few kilometers away from the frontlines.

It was occupied, then reclaimed.

But the shelling continues.

Just awful. Total annihilation.

A city of death.

That boom was a shell.
Close, about one kilometer away.

The residents face a difficult choice.

When are you going to evacuate?

Of course, it's your choice.
We can't force you.

Your husband said no?

- Hope everything works out.
- We hope so too.

They find a rocket launcher outside an abandoned house.

But that's not all.

Look, a "bird."

They spot a reconnaissance drone.

It's time to go.

Residents take the gut-wrenching decision to leave their homes and memories behind.

The volunteers have helped evacuate 30,000 people.

This is the 10th house they have visited today.

- You're leaving your dog?
- With a neighbor.

I don't want to go. But I'm scared.

If you're afraid, let's go.

God, what should I do?

If we had nuclear weapons, we might
not have been invaded.

Giving them up. Was it right? Or wrong?

It's a question that torments many Ukrainians now.

The choice to abandon nuclear arms was made under the strong influence of the United States.

And a key figure back then has something to say.

William Perry was US Defense Secretary at the time.

He dedicated his career to the ideal of a world without nuclear weapons.

And his beliefs are deeply rooted in the events of World War Two.

Unimaginable horrors, wrought by two atomic bombs.

Perry was stationed in Japan after the war.

And he saw the devastation firsthand.

He later traveled the world in the name of disarmament.

And as a man who served at the core of a nuclear superpower, people listen.

The rhetoric surrounding the nuclear power struggle is getting more and more aggressive by the latest being World War Three.

I will comment on the question about the loose talk on World War Three

by noting that in World War Two, more than 50 million people died.

If there were a World War Three, which will inevitably be a nuclear World War Three,

we're not talking about the number of people who die, we're talking about the end of our civilization.

So, the loose talk is abhorrent.

In the postwar years, we humans developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

And during the Cold War, we came perilously close to Armageddon.

But the tide began to change in the 1980s.

The leaders of the two big nuclear powers came face-to-face.

In 1987, a major turning point.

Washington and Moscow signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which called for smaller arsenals.

And so global stockpiles started to decline.

In 1991, after the Cold War, the two sides penned a treaty aimed at strategic arms reduction.

The world was firmly on the path to nuclear disarmament.

The Budapest Memorandum dovetailed with the times.

Ukraine agreed to become a nation free of nuclear weapons.

In return, security assurances came from Russia, the United States and Britain.

Ukraine needed to get rid of nearly 2,000 nuclear weapons.

And the dismantlement process was headed by Perry.

Ukraine wanted to keep nuclear weapons.

Some of the Ukrainians said they needed to keep that to protect themselves from Russia.

But I believed, and President Clinton also believed, that if they tried to keep their nuclear weapons,

they would not succeed in becoming independent

because Russia would be finding everything, everywhere they could to keep that from happening.

So, we thought our best chance of Ukraine's independence was if they got rid of their nuclear weapons.

Perry visited Ukraine's nuclear base four times to oversee the work.

There was a move towards a broader denuclearization.

I thought it could be a major step to even worldwide denuclearization.

It didn't happen, but that was our hope at the time.

I thought then that the Budapest memorandum was a great achievement.

And I still believe that.

And I can still look at how many decades of peace it gave us and say that was worth it.

28 years after the Budapest Memorandum...

...Russia invaded Ukraine.

And President Vladimir Putin hasn't stopped with the rhetoric.

Russia remains one of the world's most
powerful nuclear powers

following the collapse of the
Soviet Union.

Talk like that weighs heavily on Ukraine.

One of Bogdan's friends is a soldier.

He's returned from the frontlines for some duty in Kyiv.

He's been fighting in Kharkiv and Bakhmut.

But also, watching his comrades die in battle.

He says morning roll calls are when the losses hit hardest.

It's like: "Petrenko." "Yes."
"Ivanenko." "Yes."

"Samoilov." "Died as a hero."

And I instantly remember seeing
him the day before.

After that, my mind goes blank.

I'm just devastated.
Can't hold back the tears.

Even just thinking about it.

The horrors. Humans die so easily.

I've seen it for myself.

Sorry. One moment.

The brutality of war, experienced firsthand.

Bogdan asks his friend about nuclear weapons.

This is down to the individual.
I really should be scared.

But to be honest, I don't really
feel such a sense of crisis.

And most people in the army
are the same.

I see. So what if Russia...

Like, some chain of events...

- What if they make that choice?
- How will the tide of war change?

I don't know what kind of impact even
the smallest nuclear bomb would have.

It could be like Hiroshima or Nagasaki
and destroy everything, or be smaller.

10 kilotons is 10 million kilos of
explosives. How could you deal with it?

Not just a huge explosion, but also
tremendous radiation.

Communications, electricity.
All devices would stop functioning.

I honestly don't want to imagine
fighting in that situation.

Even without that, this is not
an easy opponent.

So how do you see the future of Ukraine?
Nuclear weapons or not?

Honestly, I want nuclear weapons,
because they guarantee our security.

But things aren't that simple.

If Ukraine had not given them up in '94,
would we have still been invaded?

I don't think so. But I think the decision
back then was right.

Possessing nuclear weapons brings
other dangers.

- I think it would have backfired.
- Worse than now?

We don't know what kind of person
would have come to power.

Imagine someone like Putin, with
2,000 warheads at hand.

There's no guarantee we wouldn't
be like Russia.

The hubris of knowing you can
do anything.

Loot or kill, whatever you want.

Where is the guarantee we wouldn't
have a second Putin?

And where is the guarantee we wouldn't
become a new aggressor?

We strive to fight with dignity.
And that's important.

When we face beasts,
we tend to be beasts.

But we must never be like Russia.

The next day, Bogdan's friend returns to the frontlines near Bakhmut.

He said if Ukraine still had
nuclear weapons,

a dictator could have emerged,

and we'd have ended up
just like Russia.

I never thought about that.

It opened my eyes.

And it reflects the words of
my grandfather.

That it was not a mistake to abandon
nuclear weapons, even with war.

I think my friend might be right.

The ideal of a world without nuclear weapons is growing ever distant.

Putin became Russia's president in the year 2000.

He was a young leader, aged 47.

I did not see Putin as a necessary obstacle to that.

And to this day, I think that the turn that Putin took several years after he came into office was not inevitable.

Putin initially warmed to NATO.

He promised to work with the United States and Europe to fight terrorism

and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

We have come a long way,
from war to dialogue,

from confrontation to cooperation.

This is the beginning of a
new relationship.

But the honeymoon didn't last long.

NATO gained seven new members in 2004.

And unveiled a missile defense program in Europe.

The Western alliance was expanding toward Russia's doorstep.

NATO continues to expand
and arm new members.

All this undermines our
cooperative relationship.

The emergence of a powerful military
bloc on our borders,

will be perceived in Russia as a direct
threat to our security.

I think in some ways we contributed to the negative turn that Putin took.

And we might, or put in other words, we might have been able to avoid the negative turn that he took,

had we been politically more astute.

Part of our contribution, what I consider our contribution to his negative turn

was that the United States and some European countries treated Russia as inconsequential.

Russia is a great nation.

It should have been treated with respect and consideration,

even though they had hard times in the 90s and the earlier part of the century,

rather than being kicked while they were down.

In 2014, Putin lit the fuse.

Russian forces capitalized on a political crisis in Ukraine.

And Moscow unilaterally annexed Crimea.

In 2018, Putin delivered his State of the Nation Address.

Armies around the world would clearly
like this ideal weapon.

Dear friends!
Russia already has it.

He was talking about a new missile

that gave Russian fighter jets the capability to launch tactical nuclear warheads.

Russia has fired a barrage of these missiles into Ukraine.

Without nuclear warheads, so far.

Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller, with a shorter range.

They are designed for use on the battlefield.

And Russia has about 2,000.

They are said to be readily deployable.

There are three nuclear powers in NATO - Britain, France and the United States.

American B61 tactical nuclear weapons are stationed in five European countries.

On one side, Russia.

And on the other, NATO.

It's a tinderbox, with Ukraine right in the middle.

I think that's a political mistake made by the United States, by European countries

that contributed to the problem.

Whether it could have been avoided, we can never say.

But I think we have some responsibility for that.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was a terrible thing.

Putin has doubled down on the rhetoric since invading Ukraine.

Only the United States has used
nuclear weapons. Twice.

To destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One expert suggests Putin may be willing to act on his threats.

Ukraine-born Mariana Budjeryn is a specialist on nuclear policy at Harvard University.

It is very worrying that Mr. Putin did mention actually the precedent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

in his speech in September, to going to draw that parallel.

Let's not forget that the last time nuclear weapons were used in war was by a nuclear state

against a state without nuclear weapons, and it was used to terminate the war quickly

and on the terms of that nuclear power, to induce unconditional surrender.

Ukraine has no deterrent.

Ukraine doesn't have a deterrent of its own, nor is it protected by a deterrent that's extended by an ally.

In late March, Moscow announced an agreement to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in ally Belarus.

A week ago, I gave an order
to the military.

To start preparing
our nuclear missile facilities.

And together with Putin, we may
introduce strategic nuclear weapons.

The scum trying to blow us up
should know this.

The people of Kyiv, less than 100 kilometers from Belarus, are living on the edge.

It's scary, for sure.

I don't want to see or hear the
destruction and devastation

that would come after a bomb drops.

It's a shame, but in today's world,

I guess nuclear weapons are the
only thing you can rely on.

I think we need them.

In a situation like this, you can't keep
the peace without strength.

Bogdan heads west to meet a friend in Lviv.

The city has accepted 150,000 people who fled from the east and south.

But housing and medical resources are in short supply.

Yevhen is an obstetrician.

He's cared for many wounded evacuees.

Women are afraid of getting pregnant.

Because many expectant mothers have
lost their children in this war.

We're the first country to be threatened
with nukes while at war.

How do you feel about that?

Using nuclear weapons would be the
beginning of the end.

No winners in nuclear war.

Everything would burn.
It'd be over.

- So, we don't need nuclear weapons?
- If we did, where would we fire them?

Where? We are not like them.

I don't want my country to have
nuclear weapons.

It makes no sense.

Even to protect your territory and values.

Self-defense would also result in
a huge number of civilian casualties.

War is terrible.

I've seen so many horrible things.
Lots of death.

But this war is especially terrifying.

They don't just kill military personnel.

They sometimes abuse citizens.
Beat women, and kidnap children.

What's happening now, it's inhumane.

Day after day, Yevhen has cared for the victims of unspeakable atrocities.

One was just 18.

Raped. And pregnant as a result.

She was unable to receive medical care in time.

Yevhen delivered her child.

But the baby died.

I knew nothing of the tragedies taking
place on the medical frontlines.

I couldn't find the words to respond.

I was shocked, and speechless.

Yet the war drags on.

Exhaustion is like a plague among the Ukrainian people.

A world away, Perry reflects on a lost ideal.

Good intentions rendered naïve by Russia's war.

Now I'm hearing that the people in Ukraine, that they have a serious doubt:

"Is it really possible, the world without nuclear weapons?"

What would you say to them?

When I get back to the time when we were talking about a world without nuclear weapons,

we believed then it would be difficult to achieve,

but we did think it would be possible and was worth working for.

Today it does not seem even possible.

The actions by Russia in Ukraine have made that clear.

And I would emphasize that it was not a strong possibility even when we were talking about it.

We recognized how difficult it would be.

But there was a brief shiny moment there when it seemed possible.

Now, it's hard to believe we were going to achieve it.

If I were working today on security problems,

I would not put that as my objective because I would think it was not achievable.

One likes to work on...

One has to establish objectives which you have some work for, which you have some chance of achieving.

Back then, I thought it was something we might be able to achieve.

Today, I would not believe that.

So, it's a major setback, as far as I'm concerned.

Lastly, Bogdan heads south to meet a farmer, not far away from Russian-occupied territory.

Russian troops were positioned
60 kilometers from here.

They came along the Dnipro River.

Russia says it will deploy
nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Close to the Ukrainian border.
How do you feel?

- I'm worried.
- I'm worried about my children.

But my "human" fear is gone.

Using nuclear weapons
is a one-way ticket.

If it happens...

...there will be nothing left.

We humans may become extinct.

I got married and returned
to my village.

Our ancestors started farming
here in the 1800s.

Like everyone around us,
we just want to grow wheat.

I don't want to change things anymore.

I've spent 15 years on this land.

With a nuke, you can lose
everything in an instant.

I don't have the time to
start all over again.

The Ukrainian people have been facing Russia's nuclear threat for more than one year now.

Bogdan is tired. But he's not without hope.

Russia threatens us with nuclear
weapons, but we aren't intimidated.

Other countries might react the same way
under similar circumstances.

And people would wonder,
"Why possess weapons that bring no merit?"

I'm starting to feel that, in the end,
the whole world might agree...

...that we don't need nuclear weapons.

Bogdan's grandfather Volodymyr is gone now.

But his words and his ideals are still very much a part of the discussion about nuclear weapons.

My grandfather talked of a process
necessary for humanity.

The nuclear dilemma.
The terror and the trauma.

We must find a way to persevere.

Ukraine-born Mariana Budjeryn.

She says this war has brought us to the brink.

It would be a huge and grave offense against the global nuclear order,

against the tradition, or the norm of non-use that has been well-established.

And yet, there's still this fear of escalating from maybe a single, or you know, two, three, nuclear uses

to an all-out nuclear exchange if NATO or the United States decide to respond forcefully,

at least with military force, even a conventional military force.

So these are the kinds of new threats, or I suppose the threats that we have long forgotten about,

or long ceased to consider, that we are looking at right now in the war in Ukraine.

I want to tell you one story from Ukraine.

We did an interview with a person, he was 88 years old, so your contemporary.

Soviet scientist. Volodymyr Parkhomenko.

Minister of education in the 90s.

And he was asked by his grandson, Bogdan, that "Was that the right decision, to get rid of nuclear weapons?"

- It's a video of Volodymyr Parkhomenko.
- Yes.

Personally, I believe
it was the right choice.

Human progress and maintaining peace
are the top priorities.

We often hear the opinion that
if we had nuclear weapons,

this would not have happened,
and there would have been no war.

But what has happend has happened.
We face a completely different reality.

We must defend our independence.
Without nuclear weapons.

I wish I'd met him.

I agree completely with both of his statements.

And what would have been the consequences if they had tried to keep their nuclear weapons?

As he observed correctly, that would have been a very bad move.

And having nuclear weapons would not have protected them as some people hoped it would.

When you start to think of it, how they would use them if they were threatened,

I think that is exactly the right way to think about it.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity.

Fundamentally.

We have avoided the worst consequences of that through the years,

but it's still true today that nuclear weapons are a threat to all of humanity.

And as soon as we can reach a political situation where we can start moving again

in the direction of eliminating nuclear weapons we will be better off.

Bogdan's grandfather had faith in humankind.

To find a way forward, despite the intensifying dilemma posed by nuclear weapons.