Russia - General Discussion.

[personaldesas]

Would it not be convenient for Ukraine to acquire them

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

and how difficult can it be for them to acquire the production capability to produce them domestically, as they have in the past?

The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

 

[Feanor]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

 

[John Fedup]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.



The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

True and it made sense then assuming Russia would morph into the state the West hoped for. Putin ended that fantasy.

 

[Feanor]

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

 

[KipPotapych]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine has been in ever since the Soviet collapse. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

I’d put it this way myself.

 

[John Fedup]

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

 

[Feanor]

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

Good question. I guess if the Ukrainian state was hell bent on hanging on to a few they probably could have secreted them away. The problem is Ukraine went through a series of presidents with different views and different affiliations. Ukraine has a lot of Russian intelligence active there too and has had since independence. I suspect Russia would know, possibly western partners too. I'm just not sure what good they would have done in '14, or now. A handful of tactical nukes isn't enough to defeat Russia, but might be enough to get Russia to respond in kind but x 10. And what could they reliably hit? Ukrainian UAVs get through Russian air defenses in general. But the odds of any particular inbound are low. Russia shoots down most of them, sometimes all of them. So you'd have to scatter the nukes among a large wave of inbounds and hope something gets through, and then what?