Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Putin faces ‘powerful’ threat as the UK pledges military aid to Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’" video.

They weren't Ukraine's nuclear weapons, they were Russia's nuclear weapons which happened to have been stationed there. And the Budapest Treaty was a very bad treaty which revealed itself to be a recipe for disaster almost before the ink had dried on the signatures.
9
What's the point in prolonging the agony?
7
And what's wrong with that?
5
@colinmurphy525 A moot point. They could only be fired by Moscow though. The Ukrainian authorities had neither the permission nor the means to do so.
5
@Lara__ Do you want this war to end or don't you?
3
@goldslcc02 What's scary about a peace treaty?
3
@desj2584 So it was a question of "finders keepers" then? I think the original purpose of the weapons carries slightly more weight than the accidental fact of where they were actually positioned when the SU collapsed.
2
@Northman-from-the-North The Soviet Union was not a country, it was a union of countries of which Russia was the dominant. It ruled Ukraine which was a semi-autonomous republic . To suggest that with the collapse of the SU everything left in Ukraine was Ukraine's is clearly absurd. A lot of decisions had to be taken as to the ownership of things, and it was clear that the nuclear weapons belonged to Russia. Which is why they ended up back there.
2
@Northman-from-the-North Can you imagine the state of the world if Ukraine had become a nuclear power? America would not have permitted it. Russia would not have permitted it. The weapons were essentially Russian weapons, stationed in Ukraine BY RUSSIA for purely tactical reasons.
2
And talking about breaking agreements and treaties, what about Minsk? Did Ukraine start to find ways of granting autonomy for Donbass, as required by those treaties? No, it did not. Which is why we now have this dreadful war.
2
@ian-nz-2000 No. It's war which is agony.
1
@foilhat1138 Where does the Soviet Union come into this?
1
@foilhat1138 Obviously not. The Soviet Union ceased to exist more than thirty years ago. What effects it surrendering anytime might have had on the present situation I can't imagine.
1
@foilhat1138 Oh I see. An analogy. I mistrust analogies since the differences invariably outweigh the spurious similarities, as is the case here. I attempted in a previous to list some of the more obvious differences but the new fascist and very irritating YouTube algorithm has deleted them.
1
@FactsBro1184 The areas concerned are far from being unequivocally Ukraine - and a large number of the people living there are proudly Russian.
1
@markmierzejewski9534 I'm sure the Ukrainians could have got them to work if they put their minds to it, but they were not intended to exclusively be part of Ukraine's nuclear defences, which is the point.
1
@foilhat1138 Did they? I didn't know that.
1
@DavidMutiba-hr3vo They had no such automatic right since obviously the weapons were designed to protect the SU as a whole, and not just Ukraine.
1
@robertpatrick3350 I think you're right. I imagine it would have been technically possible to re-program the weapons but I don't think the Americans - or anyone else - would have been happy with that.
1
@Weidefix Insofar as I understand you, you are assuming that Russia and Ukraine were equal partners in the SU. This is not the case, is it? Ukraine was a semi-autonomous republic and ultimately Russia's chattel. By any standards the NW belonged to Moscow.
1
@alien4422 But they didn't belong to Ukraine, which was very much subordinate to Russia in the Soviet Union.
1
@ThePedroski007 Britain and France have control of their weapons. Ukraine didn't. Moscow had the firing codes.
1
@Northman-from-the-North You said it yourself, Minsk came after Russia retook Crimea. It was designed to stop the fighting in Donbass and Kiev was supposed to set in motion a process leading to autonomy for the the Donbass republics. The whole thing was a con - just as Budapest was a con - a treaty designed by Americans with the purpose of advancing American interests.
1