Posted on 03/04/2014 3:54:24 PM PST by Kid Shelleen
With Russian troops now occupying Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, Kiev's beleagered interim leaders may be thinking twice about their nation's 1994 decision to abandon nuclear weapons.
The East European country actually held the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But Kiev in 1994 agreed to transfer all its atomic arms to Russia for elimination, shortly thereafter joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear nation, and within two years was weapons-free.
At the time, John Mearsheimer was one of very few who saw it as an unwise move.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
it did...part of an agreement
Too late now. That’s what they get for trusting Klinton, it would seem.
Their military budget is woefully small, and I doubt they had the finances or capability to maintain the stockpile correctly.
I’m somewhat involved in the field.
That would complicate the situation.
Thank God they did.
Ukraine should have never trusted Communists or Socialists.
God forbid all at once.
That’d just be awesome for that rock throwing crowd throwing Nazi salutes to also have a few nukes. Amazing,,,
I was surprised that they did not heed the warning for all put forward by Clinton in Serbia: If you do not have nukes, your sovereignty is subject to those that have, or have bigger armies.
I might be in error here, as it’s been a long time, but IIRC, Ukraine may not have had actual control over the weapons, as they did not have the launch codes to fire them. I read a couple stories back then about how long it would likely take to break the encryption controls that were still in the hands of TPTB Moscow.
That may not be the case, though. Like I said, it’s been a long time since I read those articles.
It’s easy to say ‘of course!’, but maintaining nuclear weapons is enormously expensive. Could basket case Ukraine actually have maintained them?
The morale to the story is don’t trust Lolmerica.
Pay particular attention, Israel.
The choice here could not be more stark. Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped.
It may have been a mistake for them but not for the rest of us. They cannot defend themselves from 2,000 lightly aremed Russian soldiers how would they have defended those nukes from the Muslims?
>At the time, John Mearsheimer was one of very few who saw it as an unwise move.<
.
1. Would it have been better to have nukes in the Ukraine during these social unrests?
2. In which direction would the nuke delivery system have pointed if it were installed?
One thing- if they had fought 2000 Russians, MANY more would have shown up.
Does anyone expect the Iranians to give up theirs?
“1. Would it have been better to have nukes in the Ukraine during these social unrests?”
Giving Russia an excuse to go in “heavy” to take control of them.
And there are many Muslims.
Ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.