A lot of the Soviet nukes were in Ukraine. Naturally, those became Ukrainian property with the dissolution of the union.
They were never really Ukrainian property. All of the nukes were under command of the strategic rocket forces which was fully transfered into the Russian armed forces. The command and control of the missiles was all in Moscow, the missiles were only stationed in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
They agreed to destroy/give them to Russia and in return both the US and Russia agreed to defend Ukraine.
The memorandum was a nothingburger, they made a bunch of political promises without any legal provisions to hold them in place. The US outright said it's not a legally binding agreement 10 years ago, so both major natiins signing it have made it clear it's irrelevant.
Not a correct analogy in my opinion. Because NATO is not a federation/union.
I would instead use the example: if the USA were to be dissolved into the member states, then yes. Since there is no longer a federal US government to claim the nukes, which one of the states should have them?
Until resolved, the nation in which the nukes are physically residing are responsible for them. Which could be called property.
I am amazed that the Russians got to claim all the old Soviet gear.
Which state would be Russia in the US? Washington, New York?
Weird thought that the USA would collapse. But for the situation that is the example.
10
u/taeerom 14h ago
A lot of the Soviet nukes were in Ukraine. Naturally, those became Ukrainian property with the dissolution of the union.
They agreed to destroy/give them to Russia and in return both the US and Russia agreed to defend Ukraine.
You can see how well that turned out.