this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
123 points (99.2% liked)
World News
128 readers
306 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The world told them to get rid of their nukes and they would be safe. Not surprising they’re wanting them back.
This is a bit nuanced and complicated. You're right in spirit of course.
Technically, those were the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union. After it broke up, operational control of these weapons remained in Moscow as per https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/
So Ukraine had physical possession, but they couldn't have turned them on from day 1 of independence. And if Ukraine had refused to return them, it seems it is an open question if they could have circumvented the security measures or not to gain control over them.
Ironically, my understanding from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2015.1026091 is that part of the reason Ukraine agreed to give up those nukes was in return for having not only security assurances, but to have those assurances extended to Crimea. This can be viewed and exchanging the nukes for retaining Crimea.
Considering what we know now... that might not have been the best deal. This almost has me asking, why not both? (Both NATO membership and nukes)
yeah, at the moment nukes are needed in nato. however, other members, like france and the US can supply them, if necessary. hopefully it won't be necessary tho