6 ms·

The dynamics change when you have nukes to back your regular forces up. The Ukraine could have thrown 100% of their conventional forces at the invasion, if the

The dynamics change when you have nukes to back your regular forces up. The Ukraine could have thrown 100% of their conventional forces at the invasion, if they would have had a nuclear threat getting their backs. As it stood, they could not mobilise because that would a) have left their flanks open because their conventional forces were in such a sad shape and b) going all in with conventional forces would have been an invitation to Russia to counter and crush them - think Russian tanks in Kiev. And it could be spun as a "legal war" and be over until the rest of the world knew how to react. If on the other hand, you at all times have a bunch of ICBMs in your back pocket, Russian blitz krieg is not in the cards.

agapon 8y ago
On the other hand, imagine what would happen if some of nuclear weapons were based near Donetsk and they would fall into hands of "separatists". Flattened Kyiv? Or imagine an accident (sabotage) with Ukrainian nuclear weapons.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Horrible things, of course. I imagine exactly such concerns lead to the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine in the first place. After the end of the cold war, there was a frantic chase to secure nuclear warheads across the former Soviet Union. The US and Russia cooperated with this. I am not saying it was a bad idea to relieve Ukraine of its nuclear arsenal. I am saying that a country that has them can keep a much higher profile in general. But as for the "fall in to separatis hands" in a situation similar to this... very unlikely. a) the central government would guard these systems more than anything b) even if by some chance such weapons would fall into separatists hands, they would have to be very quick to launch - because the Russian allies would sweep in as fast as possible to stop them. And they would want to avoid having separatists control nuclear weapons as much as the central (Kiev) government would. Given the central government would have remaining nukes to respond with, the response would not go to Donetsk (maybe one to make a point), the response would go to Moscow. And we are not even talking about what other European powers might do avoid a "broken arrow" situation. It's their backyard too.

agapon 8y ago

On the other hand, imagine what would happen if some of nuclear weapons were based near Donetsk and they would fall into hands of "separatists". Flattened Kyiv? Or imagine an accident (sabotage) with Ukrainian nuclear weapons.

jacobush 8y ago
Horrible things, of course. I imagine exactly such concerns lead to the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine in the first place. After the end of the cold war, there was a frantic chase to secure nuclear warheads across the former Soviet Union. The US and Russia cooperated with this. I am not saying it was a bad idea to relieve Ukraine of its nuclear arsenal. I am saying that a country that has them can keep a much higher profile in general. But as for the "fall in to separatis hands" in a situation similar to this... very unlikely. a) the central government would guard these systems more than anything b) even if by some chance such weapons would fall into separatists hands, they would have to be very quick to launch - because the Russian allies would sweep in as fast as possible to stop them. And they would want to avoid having separatists control nuclear weapons as much as the central (Kiev) government would. Given the central government would have remaining nukes to respond with, the response would not go to Donetsk (maybe one to make a point), the response would go to Moscow. And we are not even talking about what other European powers might do avoid a "broken arrow" situation. It's their backyard too.