4 ms·

How do you do that when the Russian military won't let you near the weapons?

Retric 2y ago
Ukraine had physical control of these weapons. They handed them over in 1994, 3 years after the fall of the USSR for assurances Russia would respect their borders. More generally a handful of soldiers isn’t the full might of a countries military. Bribes, blockade until they run out of supplies, or just shoot them.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Everything I read stated that Russian military was in possession of the weapons, but they were located within Ukraine. Perhaps bribery was an option, but Russia had the ability to destroy them at any time, either by scuttling them or bombing them.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Operational control yes, but the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory. Ukraine definitely had enough control for diplomacy to come into play. ~1,700 nuclear warheads spread across a large number of different sites is a nightmare to try and secure when the country was effectively falling apart. As to bombing 130 nuclear silos with non nuclear ordnance is problematic and doesn’t destroy the enriched uranium which means building a bomb from the wreckage isn’t nearly as expensive as starting from scratch. None of this came into play because the Ukraine government was still reasonably friendly at the time.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      > the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already. UKRAINE DID NOT WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THEIR TERRITORY. There was no path to Ukraine maintaining the nuclear weapons while also NOT having the Russian troops on Ukrainian land. The discussion of "oh, they can re-wire the weapons" would have trigged IMMEDIATE WAR with Russia. Ukraine DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS. I really don't understand why you're bringing up any other information because what I've written is the start and the end of the discussion.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > no path Clearly war was one option to remove Russian troops. Saying there’s no options, is a vast oversimplification. Call up the troupes on the phone and say we’re unhappy about those ICBM’s in our territory where going to start artillery bombardment noon tomorrow and suggest you leave before then.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Apparently that path came with consequences that made it less attractive than giving it all up.
        Retric 2y ago
        Many options were less attractive, but the government also had very close ties with Russia at the time so there was an impetus to find an excuse to hand them over.
        scott_w 2y ago
        Yes, the option in that case was “get nuked into fucking oblivion by the Russians” and know the USA would not have stepped in. I’m sure the Ukrainian top brass spent a long time wargaming that one </sarcasm> Please explain how instigating a war with Russia leads to less troops on Ukrainian land.
        Retric 2y ago
        Leave we are going to start shelling that location tomorrow isn’t a declaration of war, it’s a threat. What happens afterwards can vary quite a bit, rather than your simplistic understanding of how the world works. Starting a war when the country was in the middle of a total economic collapse was hardly a viable option for Russia at the time. There’s been 2 recent wars between Russia and Ukraine without any nukes involved. Nuclear bombardment of a country on your border isn’t such a great idea of a whole host of reasons.
        2y ago

Ukraine had physical control of these weapons. They handed them over in 1994, 3 years after the fall of the USSR for assurances Russia would respect their borders. More generally a handful of soldiers isn’t the full might of a countries military. Bribes, blockade until they run out of supplies, or just shoot them.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Everything I read stated that Russian military was in possession of the weapons, but they were located within Ukraine. Perhaps bribery was an option, but Russia had the ability to destroy them at any time, either by scuttling them or bombing them.
- Retric 2y ago
  Operational control yes, but the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory. Ukraine definitely had enough control for diplomacy to come into play. ~1,700 nuclear warheads spread across a large number of different sites is a nightmare to try and secure when the country was effectively falling apart. As to bombing 130 nuclear silos with non nuclear ordnance is problematic and doesn’t destroy the enriched uranium which means building a bomb from the wreckage isn’t nearly as expensive as starting from scratch. None of this came into play because the Ukraine government was still reasonably friendly at the time.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    > the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already. UKRAINE DID NOT WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THEIR TERRITORY. There was no path to Ukraine maintaining the nuclear weapons while also NOT having the Russian troops on Ukrainian land. The discussion of "oh, they can re-wire the weapons" would have trigged IMMEDIATE WAR with Russia. Ukraine DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS. I really don't understand why you're bringing up any other information because what I've written is the start and the end of the discussion.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > no path Clearly war was one option to remove Russian troops. Saying there’s no options, is a vast oversimplification. Call up the troupes on the phone and say we’re unhappy about those ICBM’s in our territory where going to start artillery bombardment noon tomorrow and suggest you leave before then.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Apparently that path came with consequences that made it less attractive than giving it all up.
        Retric 2y ago
        Many options were less attractive, but the government also had very close ties with Russia at the time so there was an impetus to find an excuse to hand them over.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        Yes, the option in that case was “get nuked into fucking oblivion by the Russians” and know the USA would not have stepped in. I’m sure the Ukrainian top brass spent a long time wargaming that one </sarcasm> Please explain how instigating a war with Russia leads to less troops on Ukrainian land.
        Retric 2y ago
        Leave we are going to start shelling that location tomorrow isn’t a declaration of war, it’s a threat. What happens afterwards can vary quite a bit, rather than your simplistic understanding of how the world works. Starting a war when the country was in the middle of a total economic collapse was hardly a viable option for Russia at the time. There’s been 2 recent wars between Russia and Ukraine without any nukes involved. Nuclear bombardment of a country on your border isn’t such a great idea of a whole host of reasons.
        2y ago