3 ms·

My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases. Not only did the Russians have th

My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases. Not only did the Russians have the codes, but they had soldiers in physical control with the ability to scuttle the devices.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases No. The 43rd Rocket Army "became part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" on 6 December 1991 [1]. Unlike American warheads, which are on U.S. bases, those were Russian warheads on Ukrainian bases. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Rocket_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Rocket_Army
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Not posting this as a definitive gotcha, but this article includes some detail on how the situation was "complex" at best > In early 1994, after the Trilateral Agreement, "General Vitaly Radetskyi, Ukraine’s new Minister of Defence, summoned Mikhtyuk and two of his senior generals to Kyiv.[10] Without warning, General Radetskyi told them they had 15 minutes to decide whether to take Ukraine’s oath of allegiance. General Mikhtyuk and one general took the oath, while the other refused. Then, the minister ordered [Mikhtyuk] to return to his headquarters in Vinnytsia immediately, and convene all of his subordinate commanders. ..He did so explaining his personal decision to remain in Ukraine, and asking each officer to take or reject the oath. “All of my deputies,” Mikhtyuk recalled, “except one, said they would not take the oath and asked me to transfer them to the Russian Federation."
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Of course it was complex. The point is if Kyiv refused to co-operate it would take Russian military strength it didn’t have at the time to seize them. That isn’t analogous to American nukes on overseas bases.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases No. The 43rd Rocket Army "became part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" on 6 December 1991 [1]. Unlike American warheads, which are on U.S. bases, those were Russian warheads on Ukrainian bases. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Rocket_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Rocket_Army

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Not posting this as a definitive gotcha, but this article includes some detail on how the situation was "complex" at best > In early 1994, after the Trilateral Agreement, "General Vitaly Radetskyi, Ukraine’s new Minister of Defence, summoned Mikhtyuk and two of his senior generals to Kyiv.[10] Without warning, General Radetskyi told them they had 15 minutes to decide whether to take Ukraine’s oath of allegiance. General Mikhtyuk and one general took the oath, while the other refused. Then, the minister ordered [Mikhtyuk] to return to his headquarters in Vinnytsia immediately, and convene all of his subordinate commanders. ..He did so explaining his personal decision to remain in Ukraine, and asking each officer to take or reject the oath. “All of my deputies,” Mikhtyuk recalled, “except one, said they would not take the oath and asked me to transfer them to the Russian Federation."
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Of course it was complex. The point is if Kyiv refused to co-operate it would take Russian military strength it didn’t have at the time to seize them. That isn’t analogous to American nukes on overseas bases.