So I think the proper analogy is that yes, North Dakota has many nuclear weapons stationed in its borders but that doesn't make NDak a nuclear power.

North Dakota is not a sovereign power, Ukraine is, at least for a little while yet. That’s a big difference, since North Dakota, by definition, would not “control” the nukes within its borders, but Ukraine would.

Now it may or may not be that Ukraine would have the manpower, expertise, or even interest in maintaining since a large nuclear stock (1700+ warheads), but I’d submit they wouldn’t have to. The could maintain 500. Or 200. Or 10.

Or maybe they wouldn’t even have to maintain them. As we have seen ever since ever 1946 it is the threat of nuclear missiles, not the actual use of them that seems to keep others in line. (Israel surely has them but doesn’t admit it as they don’t want to start an arms race there. That is “skilled diplomacy”, unlike the rampaging bull in a china shop variety that we are now employing.)

If Ukraine had 10 missiles, and let’s pretend they are all buried in concrete cylinders somewhere in a vast open expanse - but nobody knows that - does anyone think Putin would have invaded?