4 ms·

> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on U

> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. > in exchange for peace from Russia There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.

badc0ffee 23d ago
> Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. Structuring the breakup so that the nukes are Russia's is not really different than Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory. Where did they draw the line? Obviously not all USSR assets are now Russian assets, as Ukraine still has (or had) its own stockpile of Soviet era weapons, and other things like Soviet era airfields.
qlte 23d ago
This is over simplified to the point of being misleading/wrong. Russia was the legal successor of the USSR for purposes of diplomatic continuity, but the other Soviet successor states divided portions of the Soviet military/equipment, split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis.
- ericmay 23d ago
  Nuclear weapons are a special case though. Plus Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them anyway without launch codes as far as I'm aware.
  - goatlover 23d ago
    Electronic components can be swapped out. The nuclear material is what really matters.
    - ericmay 23d ago
      The ability to fire the weapon matters too. You need a delivery mechanism.
  - m4rtink 23d ago
    Oh, those magical "Nuclear launch codes" - that turned out to be set to 0000 in the US or used a bike key in the Brtisih case ? Turns out being able to actually use the weapon in an emergency tops the codes not working.
    - ericmay 23d ago
      Ok sure, I am not super aware of the intricacies here. But what does it matter?
      - m4rtink 22d ago
        That in the end it depends on the crew launching the nuclear weapon & the chain of command instructing them to do so. Having some codes is not sufficient - a whole complex process with many safeguards has to run to the end for things to happen.
- chokolad 23d ago
  > split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis. What split of Soviet debt obligations? Russia took over all Soviet foreign debt, as well as all the foreign assets
saxonww 23d ago
> There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum. https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484 https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or... Points 4 and 5 mention and are about use of nuclear weapons. I think the memorandum was intended to be a security guarantee to Ukraine after they (and Belarus, and Kazakhstan) joined the NPT and transferred formerly-Soviet nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation. I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise.
goatlover 23d ago
Since the USSR no longer existed and Ukraine became a sovereign nation again, Ukraine had possession of them.

badc0ffee 23d ago

> Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. Structuring the breakup so that the nukes are Russia's is not really different than Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory. Where did they draw the line? Obviously not all USSR assets are now Russian assets, as Ukraine still has (or had) its own stockpile of Soviet era weapons, and other things like Soviet era airfields.

qlte 23d ago

This is over simplified to the point of being misleading/wrong. Russia was the legal successor of the USSR for purposes of diplomatic continuity, but the other Soviet successor states divided portions of the Soviet military/equipment, split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis.

ericmay 23d ago
Nuclear weapons are a special case though. Plus Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them anyway without launch codes as far as I'm aware.
- goatlover 23d ago
  Electronic components can be swapped out. The nuclear material is what really matters.
  - ericmay 23d ago
    The ability to fire the weapon matters too. You need a delivery mechanism.
- m4rtink 23d ago
  Oh, those magical "Nuclear launch codes" - that turned out to be set to 0000 in the US or used a bike key in the Brtisih case ? Turns out being able to actually use the weapon in an emergency tops the codes not working.
  - ericmay 23d ago
    Ok sure, I am not super aware of the intricacies here. But what does it matter?
    - m4rtink 22d ago
      That in the end it depends on the crew launching the nuclear weapon & the chain of command instructing them to do so. Having some codes is not sufficient - a whole complex process with many safeguards has to run to the end for things to happen.
chokolad 23d ago
> split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis. What split of Soviet debt obligations? Russia took over all Soviet foreign debt, as well as all the foreign assets

saxonww 23d ago

> There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum. https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484 https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or... Points 4 and 5 mention and are about use of nuclear weapons. I think the memorandum was intended to be a security guarantee to Ukraine after they (and Belarus, and Kazakhstan) joined the NPT and transferred formerly-Soviet nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation. I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise.

goatlover 23d ago

Since the USSR no longer existed and Ukraine became a sovereign nation again, Ukraine had possession of them.