General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts) Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:57 AM Mar 2014

Bet Ukraine wishes now that it had not given up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for Russia's

guarantee "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".

Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

I'm not sure that Ukraine possessing nuclear weapons would have deterred Putin since most would figure that Ukraine would not use them. Ukraine would also need an unstable leader whose actions no one could predict. I hear North Korea knows how to use nuclear weapons to keep other countries from invading them. Maybe Kim could have offered Ukraine some advice.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bet Ukraine wishes now that it had not given up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for Russia's (Original Post) pampango Mar 2014 OP

Ukraine never had a single nuclear weapon -they belonged malaise Mar 2014 #1

Those nuclear weapons were left with Ukraine when it became independent. Hence the need for the pampango Mar 2014 #2

OK like they really would use them on Russia in this latest escalation bigdarryl Mar 2014 #4

As I said nuclear weapons only protect you if you have a crazy leader like North Korea has. pampango Mar 2014 #6

That argument collapses real quick. Igel Mar 2014 #12

I still have my neighbor's hammer packman Mar 2014 #3

What do you think Ukraine could do with these nuclear weapons? Suicide? LisaL Mar 2014 #5

You're right, but they must regret accepting 'guarantees' of its "Independence and Sovereignty pampango Mar 2014 #7

My guess is that Russia would not be invading if they had them. Adrahil Mar 2014 #9

Ukraine is going to be partitioned. That is probably a good thing. Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #8

Bet you are right! And Obama should have just said this must be resolved between the Ukrainian kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #10

The Russian Federation has greater interests in the Ukraine than bananas HereSince1628 Mar 2014 #11

malaise

(269,157 posts)

1. Ukraine never had a single nuclear weapon -they belonged

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:58 AM

Mar 2014

tot he Soviet Union.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

2. Those nuclear weapons were left with Ukraine when it became independent. Hence the need for the

Reply to malaise (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:14 AM

Mar 2014

agreement with Ukraine to agree to demolish them.

bigdarryl

(13,190 posts)

4. OK like they really would use them on Russia in this latest escalation

Reply to pampango (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:17 AM

Mar 2014

Russia would flatten Ukraine in 10 minutes

pampango

(24,692 posts)

6. As I said nuclear weapons only protect you if you have a crazy leader like North Korea has.

Reply to bigdarryl (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:23 AM

Mar 2014

We would flatten North Korea in less than 10 minutes if it ever used its nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, those weapons seem to serve as pretty good protection for the regime in Pyongyang.

Igel

(35,356 posts)

12. That argument collapses real quick.

Reply to malaise (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 01:07 PM

Mar 2014

"They belonged to the Soviet Union."

But the Soviet Union was a collection of political entities. If the USSR was the supranational entity and bureaucracy, when it dissolved there could be no USSR. The nuclear weapons immediately stopped having any legitimate, legal owner. They could be picked up and claimed by any passer by.

Another view is that the USSR was composed of member states, at least on paper. Then, when the USSR dissolved its property was divided in some way. Ownership was then transferred so the nuclear arms had "proper" owners.

There's the view that most would have vehemently rejected until the USSR actually dissolved: That, really, the USSR was just Russia, so that everything that the USSR owned was properly Russia's when it collapsed. This is too blatantly acknowledging that the USSR was basically an empire, and having socialism in one state embodying communist imperialism would have been too much to consider possible at the time--far too Reaganesque sounding to be possible.

packman

(16,296 posts)

3. I still have my neighbor's hammer

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:15 AM

Mar 2014

I "borrowed" several years back and every once in awhile I take it out to hammer down a nail that pops out of my wooden deck.

LisaL

(44,974 posts)

5. What do you think Ukraine could do with these nuclear weapons? Suicide?

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:17 AM

Mar 2014

Russia has a lot more and it could nuke the hell out of them.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

7. You're right, but they must regret accepting 'guarantees' of its "Independence and Sovereignty

Reply to LisaL (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:25 AM

Mar 2014

and the existing borders of Ukraine". Those guarantees don't appear to have been worth much.

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)

9. My guess is that Russia would not be invading if they had them.

Reply to LisaL (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:45 AM

Mar 2014

It's that simple.

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)

8. Ukraine is going to be partitioned. That is probably a good thing.

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:43 AM

Mar 2014

What on earth is your point?

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)

10. Bet you are right! And Obama should have just said this must be resolved between the Ukrainian

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:49 AM

Mar 2014

people and Russia and kept away from threats.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

11. The Russian Federation has greater interests in the Ukraine than bananas

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 11:59 AM

Mar 2014

And the US inserted Marines into half a dozen central American and Caribbean nations mostly in the interest of protecting the economic interests of American companies primarily the United Fruit Company.

While the Ukraine isn't a banana republic, it is in serious economic and political difficulty that place at risk Russian economic and strategic interests.

Recognition of those interests and resolution of anxieties about their security by Ukraine is better than any nuclear confrontation could be.

Reply to this discussion