4 ms·

I think what he meant was that in 1994, in the Budapest Memorandum, it was decided that Ukraine would hand their nuclear weapons to Russia over and in return Ru

I think what he meant was that in 1994, in the Budapest Memorandum, it was decided that Ukraine would hand their nuclear weapons to Russia over and in return Russia promised never invade Ukraine. Interesting that the fact that it could be a mistake was raised back in the days already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Denuclearization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#De... I would be interesting to find out what the other "experts" said back in the day.

hef19898 5y ago
Yeah, turned out that was mistake (or was it really?) almost 30 years later. Back the day the world was different. The former USSR countries were dirt poor, military hardware was sold left and right wholesale. The USSR was utterly defeated. So for everyone, it was much saver to have only one, potentially failed, state having the USSR's nukes instead of multiple ones. And it worked for almost 30 years, so back then it made sense for everyone. That might change going forward. Or might not, way to early to tell.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  Let us agree on that one: From the Geopolitical point of view was a mistake, from the practical point of view maybe not.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I'm not even sure geopolitical. Or do you think Ukraine would get all the NATO support if they had an arsenal of nukes outside of NATOs control? Culd easily be that NATO would tentatively ally with, un-officially of course, with Russia to get rid of a potentially rogue nuclear nation. Depending of the Ukrainian government of course. Or that Russia would have already annexed the whole lot during the Orange revolution. No way to tell. Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange.
    - pelasaco 5y ago
      > Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange. That's true, but having the Nukes, would may raise more responsibility around that topic too. Ukraine would be today a different country. The region dynamics would be different. Pakistan and North Korea demonstrated that. Said that, the only variable from the geopolitical point of view that for sure can be evaluated here is the possibility of "avoiding a Russia invasion in the Ukraine".
      - hef19898 5y ago
        On that we can agree.
concerned_user 5y ago
Ukraine, as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan, after the Belovezh Accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords) have already transferred all its nuclear weapons to Russia in 1992. So by the time Lisbon memorandum was signed in 1994 Ukraine did not have any nuclear weapons.
tchalla 5y ago
> The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Russia wasn’t the only signatory of the memorandum.

hef19898 5y ago

Yeah, turned out that was mistake (or was it really?) almost 30 years later. Back the day the world was different. The former USSR countries were dirt poor, military hardware was sold left and right wholesale. The USSR was utterly defeated. So for everyone, it was much saver to have only one, potentially failed, state having the USSR's nukes instead of multiple ones. And it worked for almost 30 years, so back then it made sense for everyone. That might change going forward. Or might not, way to early to tell.

pelasaco 5y ago
Let us agree on that one: From the Geopolitical point of view was a mistake, from the practical point of view maybe not.
- hef19898 5y ago
  I'm not even sure geopolitical. Or do you think Ukraine would get all the NATO support if they had an arsenal of nukes outside of NATOs control? Culd easily be that NATO would tentatively ally with, un-officially of course, with Russia to get rid of a potentially rogue nuclear nation. Depending of the Ukrainian government of course. Or that Russia would have already annexed the whole lot during the Orange revolution. No way to tell. Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange.
  - pelasaco 5y ago
    > Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange. That's true, but having the Nukes, would may raise more responsibility around that topic too. Ukraine would be today a different country. The region dynamics would be different. Pakistan and North Korea demonstrated that. Said that, the only variable from the geopolitical point of view that for sure can be evaluated here is the possibility of "avoiding a Russia invasion in the Ukraine".
    - hef19898 5y ago
      On that we can agree.

concerned_user 5y ago

Ukraine, as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan, after the Belovezh Accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords) have already transferred all its nuclear weapons to Russia in 1992. So by the time Lisbon memorandum was signed in 1994 Ukraine did not have any nuclear weapons.

tchalla 5y ago

> The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Russia wasn’t the only signatory of the memorandum.