Ask Lemmy

That's my understanding. Furthermore, they had the nuclear weapons of the soviet union. Even if they could maintain them at the time, without much of the infrastructure that the soviet Union had, I think legally they were Moscow's. Moscow held the metaphorical button, if not the physical one. Similar to US nuclear weapons in Germany aren't controlled by Berlin.

That being said, I think this whole war has lead to a situation where nuclear armament is very appealing, not just to Kyiv but to many of the similar states looking on. It is again, for world peace we need less nukes in the world, for Ukraine's sovereign safety, they need (more) nukes.

"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.

In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.

In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.

For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance

:::

No protection, just non-agression. That was violated by russia.

From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords

(1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states

That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn't actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.

And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should've included something akin to Article 5

That's the lesson here... They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.

Zero benefit to the people

It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.

Giving up nukes, and remaining neutral, is also the conditions for their liberation granted by USSR/Russia. Germany asking US to end its occupation is going to need the US to be allowed to take their weapons for them to agree peacefully.