RolloTape2025
Active member
- Messages
- 112
- Likes
- 26
I think you can often look at things from different angles, but common sense has to be there.
For example, there are posts above, stating that all the nuclear missiles belonged to Russia, because they previously belonged to the USSR. It doesn't matter about which side you are on, or what propaganda that exists, that just doesn't make sense. When the Soviet Union broke up, of course new states that are formed, will have claim on their territory, their people, the land, the buildings etc. Now USSR may also want to claim some of those things, but clearly Ukraine did think they had a valid claim. You can tell that, because
1) Negotiations on the return of the missiles had broken down between Russia and Ukraine
2) it took a tri-lateral agreement with the US included (linked in the thread)
3) it still took many years after this agreement for the nuclear missiles to be disarmed or materials returned
4) Ukraine were financially compensated for nuclear materials and received security assurances
Every one of the above 4 indications, tell you that Ukraine had at least some power/control/ownership/claim over the nuclear weapons.
So to say "Ukraine had no rights on them." doesn't make sense. If Russia had complete control over those military assets, then there isn't much of a need to even negotiate, compensate or give assurances.
If Scotland completely separated from the rest of the UK, there would be debates about who owns north sea oil, who owns certain fishing grounds, who owns military assets, would Scotland accept some part of the National Debt, would Scotland be allowed to use pound sterling and so on.
It only makes sense to say that the nuclear weapon ownership was in some sort of dispute with both Ukraine and Russia making claims on that ownership.
Ukraine later gave up their claim in return for various things, including security assurances, which of course weren't worth the paper they were written on as Russia continues its invasion.
