POE or OPE peace on earth, purity of essence; it has to be one of these derivatives for the recall code. That previous sentence is more true about who really is in charge of the atom splitters.
The bigger mistake aside from Ukraine reliqishing its nukes is that the West didn't act fast enough nor in the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Putin. If Ukraine was allowed to keep its nukes, the total invasion of Ukraine could have been stopped. I emphasise could. Also, NATO could have and should have acted. Steve in Canada
From Ontario, Canada, you're absolutely right Steve, unfortunately Obama took Putrid's word that those were not his little green men in Crimea and prior to that boondoggle, Bush Jr also got dupped by Putrid. Russia must be defeated otherwise there will never be peace... Slava Ukraïni!
As if they could launch those Nukes...Moscow had the launch Codes fanboy Without Moscow permission those nukes are useless and Moscow could Nuke ukra if it wanted since it had the Codes...Educate yourself next time Cocainsky meat rider
@georgek1234 George, I was born in Budapest in 1955. I stayed there until 1965. I have always despised USSR/Russia especially these days. I hope the West wakes up like now! Take care. Steve in Gatineau. Slava Ukraini!!!!
It just amazes me that to this day the former American ambassador can dare to include Ukraine in the diplomatic "mistakes" which the West made, when the diplomatic transcripts CLEARLY indicate Ukraine tried to do everything it could to warn the clueless & naive Americans of Russian imperialism and its potential threats to Ukrainian sovereignty. Слава Україні 💙💛
@wendel6 Two sentences, with no specifics.If they really wanted them there was nothing the US or the Russian Federation could have done to take them. But like today, the Ukraine was after US money.
When this took place I was a teenager. I knew at the time that this exact thing would happen were russia would break their word and invade. At that point in time the Leadership in England, America, Ukraine and russia. I really hate it when my gut feeling is right.
Ukrainians broke their word first when they abandoned neutrality in order to join NATO. Russians legitimately reacted to the threat to their national security!
Because the real role of Russia has never been openly shown either in the USSR or globally, people weren't aware of the true intentions of russians. I guess only president Reagan knew what the USSR or the RF was.
It says in the video that the Russians didn't want to talk about an independent Ukraine. The thing I've learned in life is people will tell you what they think and you should count on them doing what they say. When has Russia ever been trustworthy? Whatever 'deal' Trump is about to impose on the situation? Don't forget when Trump 'negotiated' with the Taliban he just agreed to everything they wanted.
@HectorCandelasOrtega I wrote elsewhere: Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!! The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
Ukraine was the world‘s third largest nuclear armed state upon becoming independent from moscow in 1991, and Ukraine voluntarily disarmed and have up its entire arsenal in exchange for a guaranteed sovereign status and security of its territorial integrity. Russia actually took control of a large number of Ukraine‘s warheads and delivery systems.
@vladpootin5973 Moscow had command and control over the strategic forces. The only nukes the Ukrainians could have possibly deployed were the tactical nukes.
@@mitchyoung93 & these were russian missiles!! belonging to russia NOT the ukraine its amazing how ppl avoid that fact.. america have nuclear weapons in the uk... & throughout europe, there still amaerican property!! just as the ukrainian placed missiles belonged to russia/USSR
Ukraine must rebuild its nuclear deterrent, regardless of possible NATO membership. Russia will have another Putin someday. Ukraine needs a credible nuclear deterrent for when that time comes.
heyy... just wait til america says "we'll secretly place some of our nukes in the ukraine" that'll not cause any issues... side note!! this is the exact reason the cuban missile crisis occurred..... this wasn't the Russians being aggressive, it was as a reaction after they found-out what the americans were upto!!! everyone's pointing at russia "there communist etc" the americans broke the nuclear arms treaty via placing weapons in what's now europe. aw wait, america also faked "factually faked!" an attack on a war ship near to vietnam, which was used as a reason to join that conflict... "thats weird......" the americans broke a nuclear treaty & placed missiles in europe creating the cuban missile crisis, as the russians wanted to do the same to america which the yanks didnt like.... "thats the russians fault!! REALLY!" Russia did make it clear the ukraine wasnt to join europe/NATO.. this was part of the agreement made, the ukraine has gone against that agreement, it was specifically clear what would occur if they did attempt to join etc Sorry I'm NOT pro-russian,, but there's alot more going on then ppl are taking notice of!! russia is reacting to events, the ukraine made its move AFTER speaking with the americans pre-application etc aw, also the ukraine NEVER had its own nuclear deterrent, it held intercontinental missiles as part of being within the USSR, Russia etc prior to it collapsing, the Ukraine has NEVER created its own developed missiles.
ERM, NO!!!!!! that would be BAD!! as a previous comment made on here!!! the americans placing missiles in whats now europe was the actual reason the CUBAN missile crisis begun.... YES, thats why the russians wanted to place missiles in cuba, which the americans didn't like & that's what created the VERY serious military conflict almost sparked ww3.... what's occurring now!! could VERY easily still spark ww3.... now another side note, nuclear weapons don't stop or prevent attacks (YOUR THINKING.... YES THEY DO!!) ok lets play that card I'm going to say september 11, now that came from a very low tech group, low funded group of ppl & they didn't & don't care america have hundreds of nukes!! (a group which the leader isn't afghani, he's from saudi arabia, he was also removed from the taliban due to being to actions he previously did...) & YET, invasions of nations NOT involved in such actions occurred. The following wars, only proved america hasn't the will to win, nor ability to.. especially on foreign soil, 2 invasions & now 2 nations (Afghanistan & Iraq) absolutely destroyed & in a worse state now then they ever were & yes now "the terrorists" have even more high tech weapons, equipment & vehicles worth billions ££££ ALL curtesy of the americans, so... did they actually HELP, or HINDER the nations cries for help/assistance.. Just as!!! the false information as the americans had been attacked off the coast of vietnam, sparking the american direct involvment in said conflict (again leaving the nation worse then it begun)... the americans are making BILLIONS from this conflict, Russia is reacting to events...
Though the Nukes were positioned in Ukrane , the control was in Russia ,and if Ukrane hadn't return the nukes -it would have been forced to do so by the same west ..go learn history first .
YEP!! this upload is more proper gander to give favour to the ukraine having nukes within its boarders!! having nukes wouldn't stop a damned thing!!! ie for the idea, dont attack use we've nukes .... ok shoot, Russia "we've thousands!" the planet wont exist if we launch.. ppl should read up history between teh nations as to what's occurred in the last 30yrs or so!!! in short, why is america pushing russia to react upon actions/events its happily suggested/pushed the ukraine into doing/carried out, why is america now happily making billions ££$$$ in military supplies, everyone is pointing at russia!! the ukraine is being manipulated.. I'm against the war, I'd wish it all stopped today!!! BUT we've all got to realise agreements/treaties have been broken ie russian/ukraine have made, russia is reacting to these breaches, they've said clearly what would happen many yrs ago now
Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!! The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
The electronics would have been quite easy to replace anyway. So while they couldn’t be used “as is” it wouldn’t have been a big task to make them usable.
Ukrainian shldnt have trusted the west nor Russia to give up its nuke it really hurts my heart cos after they gave up its nuke they became weak thts why Russia attacked them.cos all the countries with nuke are strong and powerful. I feel sad and srry for Ukrainian believing both parties Russia 🇷🇺 and the west. Dmm
Very cool report about the issue in general and the museum in particular. I am going to visit Ukraine in 2025, and this is one place that has now been put on my bucket list.
Well done Dasha nearly like you were astronaut for the day. Major Valerii was a wealth of knowledge and great host taking great care of young Dasha. I wonder how the Major thought when the Budapest memorandum was being discussed. It's plain to see now everyone lied to Ukraine and it's people. They gave up the ability to wipe out millions of lives for security guarantees people would not keep. How low is that. There must have been Ukrainians at the time,maybe the Major,who thought it was a bad idea even with the pressure being put on them to agree Super interesting video,thanks🙏
Great mini doc. Yes it may be propaganda but propaganda can also be very true! To everybody that says this is just Ukrainian propaganda. It's a well-done documentary and relatively far assessment. Definitely going to watch more of your content. Honestly I thought you just were a news site but I'm glad to see you're doing videos that are in Depth. Thank you and God bless you all in Ukraine ❤ I'm not very religious but still praying for you all
As part of the USSR, Ukraine had no sovereignty over the nuclear weapons located on its territory. Soviet nuclear weapons have always been completely controlled by Moscow. As an example, US nuclear weapons, which are located in Türkiye are controlled by US not Türkiye.
Not exactly comparable since Turkey is not a U.S. territory. Whereas Russia and Ukraine were both republics of the USSR. Ukraine had possession of the weapons. They wouldn’t be able to launch as is but could have started their own program within a decade. There’s a reason they had to decommission the infrastructure and depose of the nuclear materials.
Great video, thanks. I would like to know whether or not would be Ukraine able to launch the missiles without security krys that remained in russian hands. Anyway, it's more than clear that any assurance does not work in reality. Either you are strong enough to defend yourself or there is a risk you can be attacked any time..
If you lose your house keys, what are your options? Kick down the door, now it’s broken; pick the lock, takes time and skill; or call a locksmith to replace the lock. It’s infinitely more complex than that but at the end of the day, it’s all screws, bolts, and coding.
Yes today it looks like a bad deal. Now a mistake or a good deal at the moment is up for debate. The nukes belonged to the Soviet Union also NATO wouldn’t have allowed anyone joining the special club. Nor Russia to keep control of them in side Ukraine as a joint thing. So it’s possible Ukraine would have been seen as a North Korea or Iran given Ukraines political landscape. Sadly At the time it would have been seen as a threat to NATO so they wouldn’t have let it stay in Ukraine.
How do Russian nuclear weapons compare to the rest of the world? Russia - 6,257 America 5,550 UK - 225 France - 290 China - 350 Israel - 90 Pakistan - 165 India - 156 North Korea - 40
Strictly speaking, the missiles belonged to the Soviet Union. As a successor to USSR they were returned to The Russian Federation, not to its newly independent former republics. They returned them in exchange for economical aid. If they had tried to keep them they would have had sanctions from the west as well as east. Therefore had no choice but to give them up also they couldn’t even maintain them as they didn’t have the technology everything was in Moscow also due to financial instability. They were literally forced by US to give them up. It’s like Belarus today claiming to own nuclear weapons cause they’re holding some nuclear weapons for russia it’s absurd. Stop lying to people please .
You do realize several of the points you make are covered in the video, right? And regardless of what Russia and the West may have done, they were willing to make security guarantees/assurances to convince Ukraine to relinquish and dismantle their nuclear weapons infrastructure. So… no one is lying.
And as a part of that agreement the west primarily NATO promised not to move 1” further east. And what have we done. Moved consistently east towards Russia.
There’s no agreement that NATO wouldn’t expand. This is a myth Gorbachev himself disputed. But you can go read the Budapest Memorandum yourself. Doesn’t say anything about NATO.
3rd largest Nuclear Missile Stockpile and also Strategic Bomber Airforce... "Oh but Moscow had the codes" - Dude they were made in Ukraine, think they couldn't have put new modules in? And think they couldn't have downgraded the size of the stockpile in order to ensure it was kept to a high standard? For sure if Ukraine had not given up this powerful but also expensive set of assets for free in the Budapest Memorandum with the promise that their Sovereign rights as a country would not only be respected by the other signers of the memorandum, but that those countries would also come to aid Ukraine if their sovereignty was breached... That was the UK, Russian Federation and the USA. Also China and India signed on I believe. Yet Russia meddled in Ukraine's politics nearly instantly and then invaded multiple times, not only that but even uses the strategic bomber fleet to target Ukrainian civilians... Did China or India do anything? No. The UK and the US send aid now in 2022 but not 2014 and certainly no troops on the ground, or the quantities on time when needed... And Russia? Yeah.
Few people truly understand the purpose and limitations of nuclear weapons. To put it succinctly: they are largely useless, extremely expensive, challenging to build and maintain, and even more complex to support with the detection, command, decision, and control systems needed to realize their limited utility. Most importantly, since at least the early 1950s, they have been objectively useless for fighting wars. Why, then, do the small number of nations that maintain nuclear arsenals continue to do so? The answer is deterrence-specifically, deterrence of nuclear attacks, not deterrence of wars in general. A sufficiently composed nuclear arsenal, supported by robust detection and command systems, can credibly threaten a "Dead Hand Strike," a retaliatory attack launched after an adversary initiates a preemptive nuclear first strike. In such a scenario, where national death is imminent, launching a Dead Hand Strike may be rational, as it ensures the adversary's destruction as well. This narrow set of circumstances-a situation in which there is an impending credible threat of a national death-is the only situation in which using nuclear weapons makes any sense. Their use in any other context risks triggering a chain of events that leads to national death. By the early 1950s and certainly by the 1960s, this paradoxical condition-where using nuclear weapons might lead to national death-was well understood. In a world where nuclear-armed adversaries target and monitor one another, the concepts of a "Decapitation First Strike" and a "Dead Hand Reprisal Strike" became central to strategic thinking. This dynamic, known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), established that no nuclear-armed nation could use these weapons without risking national death. As a result, the sole purpose of maintaining them is to deter Decapitation Strikes. In every other scenario, where the probability of national death is not high, their use does not make sense. In the 21st century, nuclear arsenals vary significantly. France and Britain maintain only a few hundred warheads each, while China has about 300. The U.S. and Russia, historically the largest nuclear powers, still hold thousands of warheads. However, the practical requirements for "nation-killing" capability are far smaller. With just 50 to 100 warheads targeting major cities and military installations, any nation could be effectively destroyed, as a single ~1-megaton bomb can obliterate a large metropolitan area. In summary: nuclear weapons are nearly useless in practical terms. As the Russo-Ukrainian war demonstrates, they are ineffective for coercing a weaker neighboring state, deterring deep conventional attacks, defending the homeland from invasion, breaking strategic deadlocks, or escaping the quagmire of attrition warfare. Their historical utility in shaping the outcome of wars is nearly nonexistent, having influenced only one conflict decisively. In their 79-year history, nuclear weapons have only shaped a war’s outcome once: when the U.S. used the second and third nuclear devices to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compelling Japan to surrender on terms that avoided far greater losses. Arguably, from 1945 until about 1952 or 1953, the U.S. could have used nuclear weapons again, as no other nation had the capacity to retaliate in kind. By 1953, however, it was thought that Soviet capabilities had grown sufficient to impose MAD, and by the 1960s, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union understood that these weapons’ primary purpose was deterrence, not use. Today, the existence of multiple adversarial nuclear dyads-India vs. Pakistan, the West vs. Russia, China vs. its potential adversaries-ensures that a credible threat of "nation-killing" retaliation deters even the most reckless leaders. Nuclear weapons are of no practical value to Ukraine. They do not deter conventional or hybrid warfare and are useless for defense or winning wars. Observe: Russia, with one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, has failed to deter Ukraine from invading Kursk Oblast or crossing other supposed "red lines" touted as potential triggers for nuclear retaliation. Nuclear weapons are not a solution, and Ukraine is better off without them.
I am profoundly saddened by the failure of the West: US, UK, and EU to allow the annexation of Crimea and not to confront Russia with a bold and unified direct intervention. Thousands of lives could have been saved if we had acted with boldness in accordance with the Budapest Accord. I will forever blame Obama, Cameron, Junker, and Merkel for this strategic failure.
Just to reminder you that Ukraine never was. All the nuclears were under soviet commands, with Rusian soldiers etc. In other words, Ukraine was under Rusian occupation.
unfortune Ukraine being sold as a mid line, a collatoral, sandwiched between nato west, and russia former ussr. victim of 2 powers my prayers to all Ukrainas
Very interesting video i learnt about Ukraine's documents from a very interesting Netflix documentary i watched recently turning point: the bomb and the cold war. Such a shame Ukraine gave up their nukes for a deal Russia broke
The Ukraine didn't have command and control of the Soviet strategic missile forces. That was in Moscow. It left 'its' bombers to rot on airfields without any maintenance. In fact it had to 'sell' some Tu-160s to Russia (which had produced them in the first place) in order to pay for its way past due gas bill. And Russia didn't receive any assistance from the US. In fact it got election meddling, and a second term of the drunk Yeltsin and the continued bargain basement sale of its assets.
Russia didn’t think so, apparently. If you read Yeltsin’s phone calls with Clinton, he was very concerned and even threatened to cut off oil and gas and apply whatever pressure needed to force Ukraine to surrender them…
Ukrainian engineers were heavily involved in the design and construction of those weapons, they could easily have reverse engineered them and there is no way russia would have launched their cruel invasion if Ukraine still had them!
@duckcensorship7446 at the very least they don't have a production of tritium in Ukraine. And without tritium refill these weapons are useless in 5-10 years even with codes and everything. Maintaining these weapons was totally impossible for Ukraine, it would be too costly, that's way it was surrendered so easily. It was much more of a liability than an asset.
Yeah yeah yeah......and as per Indians, India was world's No.1 economic power before the British (East India company took over), tell me something new !!
As part of the USSR, Ukraine had no sovereignty over the nuclear weapons located on its territory. Soviet nuclear weapons have always been completely controlled by Moscow. As an example, US nuclear weapons, which are located in the states of North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico, are controlled by the federal government.
That is a terrible example. Those states all belong to the same country. The Soviet Union was a conglomerate of eastern countries governed together. Nowhere near the same thing. And most of the tech that went into anything Soviet worth mentioning was basically entirely based out of Ukraine.
@@dustinandtarynwolfe5540 The Soviet Union was not a conglomerate of Eastern countries. It was a single unitary state. The Soviet republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), which made up the USSR, did not have any sovereignty. At the same time, the socialist countries that were part of the Eastern Bloc (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea) were formally independent states.
@@АлексейСмирнов-к4лyou can spin it anyway you want but the Soviet republics were countries prior to soviet occupation. Why do you think 90+% of the Ukrainian population wanted independence? So sure, you can say that during the Soviet Union it was a "single unitary state" on paper but most of those republics (countries) wanted to be independent. Why do you think those republics had so many independent movements while under Soviet occupation?
Kalian bermimpi tentang kejayaan uni Soviet, tapi kalian membenci Rusia dan Belarusia...ahh .betapa absurdnya... percayalah mimpi hanya akan terwujud jika kalian bersama saudara kalian yang sejati..bukan bersama orang yang berpura-pura baik hanya untuk mengambil keuntungan dari kalian.. kalian selamanya adalah bangsa Slavia, bagaimana pun kalian ingin menjadi orang eropa barat..itu ada dalam DNA kalian
Não aceitem ceder nenhum território. Por nada. Esqueçam acordos e tratados. Ninguém cumpre nada. Absolutamente nada. Desenvolvam armas (nucleares e convencionais), e surpreendam o mundo. É só isso que o invasor e o ocidente enchergam. Mais nada. Tenham todos, um ótimo sábado. Amém irmãos? Amém.
If roosha had stayed within their playground nukes would never have been there anywAy and most were constructed there and a lot were stationed there also 😚
This program needs to be viewed by a lot more people.
Nice work Daria and Jason! This video is a very informative piece of journalistic reporting.
God Bless Ukraine and Merry Christmas to all our Ukrainian friends and Allies.
@@StevenKeery 👍🙂
POE or OPE peace on earth, purity of essence; it has to be one of these derivatives for the recall code. That previous sentence is more true about who really is in charge of the atom splitters.
theres nothing merry on the fronline or in a country under full scale invasion
The bigger mistake aside from Ukraine reliqishing its nukes is that the West didn't act fast enough nor in the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Putin. If Ukraine was allowed to keep its nukes, the total invasion of Ukraine could have been stopped. I emphasise could. Also, NATO could have and should have acted. Steve in Canada
From Ontario, Canada, you're absolutely right Steve, unfortunately Obama took Putrid's word that those were not his little green men in Crimea and prior to that boondoggle, Bush Jr also got dupped by Putrid. Russia must be defeated otherwise there will never be peace... Slava Ukraïni!
As if they could launch those Nukes...Moscow had the launch Codes fanboy
Without Moscow permission those nukes are useless and Moscow could Nuke ukra if it wanted since it had the Codes...Educate yourself next time Cocainsky meat rider
@georgek1234 George, I was born in Budapest in 1955. I stayed there until 1965. I have always despised USSR/Russia especially these days. I hope the West wakes up like now! Take care. Steve in Gatineau. Slava Ukraini!!!!
Ukraine would have been destroyed if they tried to retake crimea in 2014 and despite 10 years of nato training they couldn't push Russians out
Crimea was never Ukrainian .
ahh very good thank you Dasha and staff.
When Dasha said it’s her nightmare to look down that far in the bomb shaft I must agree. It’s Scary 😱
No one can trust Russian again in nothing sorry for very day Russian people
It just amazes me that to this day the former American ambassador can dare to include Ukraine in the diplomatic "mistakes" which the West made, when the diplomatic transcripts CLEARLY indicate Ukraine tried to do everything it could to warn the clueless & naive Americans of Russian imperialism and its potential threats to Ukrainian sovereignty. Слава Україні 💙💛
@wendel6 Two sentences, with no specifics.If they really wanted them there was nothing the US or the Russian Federation could have done to take them. But like today, the Ukraine was after US money.
Great report Daria. This really brings things into perspective.
This is the best video of this channel ever!
Wow. I learnt a lot! Lots of information that I didn’t know. Subscribed 👍🏼
When this took place I was a teenager. I knew at the time that this exact thing would happen were russia would break their word and invade. At that point in time the Leadership in England, America, Ukraine and russia. I really hate it when my gut feeling is right.
Ukrainians broke their word first when they abandoned neutrality in order to join NATO.
Russians legitimately reacted to the threat to their national security!
Haha you guys are fucked by USA AND WESTERN ELITES
I think we all did and nations around the world, who have a bad neighbour will be looking at aquiring their own nukes now, all thanks to russia!
Because the real role of Russia has never been openly shown either in the USSR or globally, people weren't aware of the true intentions of russians. I guess only president Reagan knew what the USSR or the RF was.
It says in the video that the Russians didn't want to talk about an independent Ukraine. The thing I've learned in life is people will tell you what they think and you should count on them doing what they say. When has Russia ever been trustworthy? Whatever 'deal' Trump is about to impose on the situation? Don't forget when Trump 'negotiated' with the Taliban he just agreed to everything they wanted.
Excellent journalism. Thank you. I learned much from watching it
Learned the wrong reality!
That is dangerous!
Wrong reality
@@samik2260Ok putinboy.
@@fingerprint8479Loving Kremlin's "reality", right?
@HectorCandelasOrtega I wrote elsewhere:
Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!!
The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
The weapons were in Ukraine possession. Therefore they were Ukraines weapons.
How about Belarus and Kazakhstan?
And the PALs were in Moscow.
It was an old agreement made by gouvernments long time ago … Agreement is an agreement.
Those weapons were still under control of the Russians. They had troops at those bases. It would have been bloody if anyone attacked those bases
Ukraine can,t believe any paper now
so just keep fighting forever?
And should have learned not to trust US, but no
@@websitemartianno just American and ruzzian paper/word is worthless
I was there before the war. Already then, one of the most spooky places of history I've ever seen.
Good documentary.
Interesting, thank you!
Great video, thank you for sharing
Ukraine was the world‘s third largest nuclear armed state upon becoming independent from moscow in 1991, and Ukraine voluntarily disarmed and have up its entire arsenal in exchange for a guaranteed sovereign status and security of its territorial integrity. Russia actually took control of a large number of Ukraine‘s warheads and delivery systems.
@vladpootin5973 Moscow had command and control over the strategic forces. The only nukes the Ukrainians could have possibly deployed were the tactical nukes.
@@mitchyoung93 & these were russian missiles!! belonging to russia NOT the ukraine
its amazing how ppl avoid that fact..
america have nuclear weapons in the uk... & throughout europe, there still amaerican property!! just as the ukrainian placed missiles belonged to russia/USSR
Thank you for excellent explainer Daria! 🇺🇦✨
Another reason you never ever never give up your right to bear arms, or give up your weapons never for anyone never
Ukraine must rebuild its nuclear deterrent, regardless of possible NATO membership. Russia will have another Putin someday. Ukraine needs a credible nuclear deterrent for when that time comes.
heyy... just wait til america says "we'll secretly place some of our nukes in the ukraine" that'll not cause any issues...
side note!! this is the exact reason the cuban missile crisis occurred..... this wasn't the Russians being aggressive, it was as a reaction after they found-out what the americans were upto!!! everyone's pointing at russia "there communist etc" the americans broke the nuclear arms treaty via placing weapons in what's now europe.
aw wait, america also faked "factually faked!" an attack on a war ship near to vietnam, which was used as a reason to join that conflict... "thats weird......"
the americans broke a nuclear treaty & placed missiles in europe creating the cuban missile crisis, as the russians wanted to do the same to america which the yanks didnt like.... "thats the russians fault!! REALLY!"
Russia did make it clear the ukraine wasnt to join europe/NATO.. this was part of the agreement made, the ukraine has gone against that agreement, it was specifically clear what would occur if they did attempt to join etc Sorry I'm NOT pro-russian,, but there's alot more going on then ppl are taking notice of!!
russia is reacting to events, the ukraine made its move AFTER speaking with the americans pre-application etc
aw, also the ukraine NEVER had its own nuclear deterrent, it held intercontinental missiles as part of being within the USSR, Russia etc prior to it collapsing, the Ukraine has NEVER created its own developed missiles.
I WONDER IF THE USA GAVE UKRAINE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COULD UKRAINE USE THOSE FACILITIES?
ERM, NO!!!!!! that would be BAD!!
as a previous comment made on here!!! the americans placing missiles in whats now europe was the actual reason the CUBAN missile crisis begun.... YES, thats why the russians wanted to place missiles in cuba, which the americans didn't like & that's what created the VERY serious military conflict almost sparked ww3....
what's occurring now!! could VERY easily still spark ww3....
now another side note, nuclear weapons don't stop or prevent attacks (YOUR THINKING.... YES THEY DO!!) ok lets play that card
I'm going to say september 11, now that came from a very low tech group, low funded group of ppl & they didn't & don't care america have hundreds of nukes!! (a group which the leader isn't afghani, he's from saudi arabia, he was also removed from the taliban due to being to actions he previously did...) & YET, invasions of nations NOT involved in such actions occurred. The following wars, only proved america hasn't the will to win, nor ability to.. especially on foreign soil, 2 invasions & now 2 nations (Afghanistan & Iraq) absolutely destroyed & in a worse state now then they ever were & yes now "the terrorists" have even more high tech weapons, equipment & vehicles worth billions ££££ ALL curtesy of the americans, so... did they actually HELP, or HINDER the nations cries for help/assistance..
Just as!!! the false information as the americans had been attacked off the coast of vietnam, sparking the american direct involvment in said conflict (again leaving the nation worse then it begun)... the americans are making BILLIONS from this conflict, Russia is reacting to events...
Though the Nukes were positioned in Ukrane , the control was in Russia ,and if Ukrane hadn't return the nukes -it would have been forced to do so by the same west ..go learn history first .
Why comment when you clearly didn’t watch the video? It literally talks about how they were forced to by both US and Russia.
YEP!! this upload is more proper gander to give favour to the ukraine having nukes within its boarders!! having nukes wouldn't stop a damned thing!!!
ie for the idea, dont attack use we've nukes .... ok shoot, Russia "we've thousands!" the planet wont exist if we launch..
ppl should read up history between teh nations as to what's occurred in the last 30yrs or so!!!
in short, why is america pushing russia to react upon actions/events its happily suggested/pushed the ukraine into doing/carried out, why is america now happily making billions ££$$$ in military supplies, everyone is pointing at russia!! the ukraine is being manipulated..
I'm against the war, I'd wish it all stopped today!!! BUT we've all got to realise agreements/treaties have been broken ie russian/ukraine have made, russia is reacting to these breaches, they've said clearly what would happen many yrs ago now
@ seeing as you repeatedly refer to it as “the Ukraine”, you don’t seem to have a grasp of the subject.
Ukraine followed the US advices and gave up all nukes. .Morally, now the US owes her a guarantee of territorial integrity
Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!!
The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
The electronics would have been quite easy to replace anyway.
So while they couldn’t be used “as is” it wouldn’t have been a big task to make them usable.
How can I find this museum? when all of this is over, i'd love to go and visit such a museum
Ukrainian shldnt have trusted the west nor Russia to give up its nuke it really hurts my heart cos after they gave up its nuke they became weak thts why Russia attacked them.cos all the countries with nuke are strong and powerful. I feel sad and srry for Ukrainian believing both parties Russia 🇷🇺 and the west. Dmm
They couldn't arm the nukes. The fear was that Russia would invade them to get the warheads if they didn't give them up.
Very cool report about the issue in general and the museum in particular. I am going to visit Ukraine in 2025, and this is one place that has now been put on my bucket list.
Well done Dasha nearly like you were astronaut for the day.
Major Valerii was a wealth of knowledge and great host taking great care of young Dasha.
I wonder how the Major thought when the Budapest memorandum was being discussed. It's plain to see now everyone lied to Ukraine and it's people. They gave up the ability to wipe out millions of lives for security guarantees people would not keep. How low is that.
There must have been Ukrainians at the time,maybe the Major,who thought it was a bad idea even with the pressure being put on them to agree
Super interesting video,thanks🙏
I wish you'd kept them. This war probably wouldn't be happening right now. I was questioning the wisdom of that agreement when it was made.
This is very interesting 🧐 for real
Great mini doc. Yes it may be propaganda but propaganda can also be very true! To everybody that says this is just Ukrainian propaganda. It's a well-done documentary and relatively far assessment. Definitely going to watch more of your content. Honestly I thought you just were a news site but I'm glad to see you're doing videos that are in Depth. Thank you and God bless you all in Ukraine ❤ I'm not very religious but still praying for you all
I was just here (20 November 2024) and had a great experience.
As part of the USSR, Ukraine had no sovereignty over the nuclear weapons located on its territory. Soviet nuclear weapons have always been completely controlled by Moscow. As an example, US nuclear weapons, which are located in Türkiye are controlled by US not Türkiye.
Not exactly comparable since Turkey is not a U.S. territory. Whereas Russia and Ukraine were both republics of the USSR.
Ukraine had possession of the weapons. They wouldn’t be able to launch as is but could have started their own program within a decade. There’s a reason they had to decommission the infrastructure and depose of the nuclear materials.
wow so many experts on nuclear weapons in the comments
lmao every one is an expert in their own mind
She is one beautiful woman I enjoyed her video
Great video, thanks. I would like to know whether or not would be Ukraine able to launch the missiles without security krys that remained in russian hands.
Anyway, it's more than clear that any assurance does not work in reality. Either you are strong enough to defend yourself or there is a risk you can be attacked any time..
If you lose your house keys, what are your options? Kick down the door, now it’s broken; pick the lock, takes time and skill; or call a locksmith to replace the lock. It’s infinitely more complex than that but at the end of the day, it’s all screws, bolts, and coding.
where is this nuclear launch side museum located?
The outcome of any agreement depends on a countries leaders!
Cant help but agree with the conclusions
Wow. Their missile silos look identical to out Titan 2 silos (c.f., 11:23)
Yes today it looks like a bad deal. Now a mistake or a good deal at the moment is up for debate. The nukes belonged to the Soviet Union also NATO wouldn’t have allowed anyone joining the special club. Nor Russia to keep control of them in side Ukraine as a joint thing. So it’s possible Ukraine would have been seen as a North Korea or Iran given Ukraines political landscape. Sadly At the time it would have been seen as a threat to NATO so they wouldn’t have let it stay in Ukraine.
Would the silos still work with new weapons
I'm sure they could be upgraded and working
They have been filled in with concrete and rubble
Thank you, Anna. 💙💛. Your hard work is appreciated. 🔱HEROYAM🇺🇦SLAVA🔱. 🙏 stay safe.
Daria, not Anna :)
English dubb pls. This is very important in our history
How do Russian nuclear weapons compare to the rest of the world?
Russia - 6,257
America 5,550
UK - 225
France - 290
China - 350
Israel - 90
Pakistan - 165
India - 156
North Korea - 40
Strictly speaking, the missiles belonged to the Soviet Union. As a successor to USSR they were returned to The Russian Federation, not to its newly independent former republics. They returned them in exchange for economical aid. If they had tried to keep them they would have had sanctions from the west as well as east. Therefore had no choice but to give them up also they couldn’t even maintain them as they didn’t have the technology everything was in Moscow also due to financial instability. They were literally forced by US to give them up. It’s like Belarus today claiming to own nuclear weapons cause they’re holding some nuclear weapons for russia it’s absurd.
Stop lying to people please .
You do realize several of the points you make are covered in the video, right?
And regardless of what Russia and the West may have done, they were willing to make security guarantees/assurances to convince Ukraine to relinquish and dismantle their nuclear weapons infrastructure.
So… no one is lying.
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦💙💛🇬🇧
And as a part of that agreement the west primarily NATO promised not to move 1” further east. And what have we done. Moved consistently east towards Russia.
There’s no agreement that NATO wouldn’t expand. This is a myth Gorbachev himself disputed. But you can go read the Budapest Memorandum yourself. Doesn’t say anything about NATO.
Now they wish they would have kept them 🤨
3rd largest Nuclear Missile Stockpile and also Strategic Bomber Airforce... "Oh but Moscow had the codes" - Dude they were made in Ukraine, think they couldn't have put new modules in? And think they couldn't have downgraded the size of the stockpile in order to ensure it was kept to a high standard?
For sure if Ukraine had not given up this powerful but also expensive set of assets for free in the Budapest Memorandum with the promise that their Sovereign rights as a country would not only be respected by the other signers of the memorandum, but that those countries would also come to aid Ukraine if their sovereignty was breached... That was the UK, Russian Federation and the USA. Also China and India signed on I believe.
Yet Russia meddled in Ukraine's politics nearly instantly and then invaded multiple times, not only that but even uses the strategic bomber fleet to target Ukrainian civilians... Did China or India do anything? No. The UK and the US send aid now in 2022 but not 2014 and certainly no troops on the ground, or the quantities on time when needed... And Russia? Yeah.
Few people truly understand the purpose and limitations of nuclear weapons. To put it succinctly: they are largely useless, extremely expensive, challenging to build and maintain, and even more complex to support with the detection, command, decision, and control systems needed to realize their limited utility. Most importantly, since at least the early 1950s, they have been objectively useless for fighting wars.
Why, then, do the small number of nations that maintain nuclear arsenals continue to do so? The answer is deterrence-specifically, deterrence of nuclear attacks, not deterrence of wars in general. A sufficiently composed nuclear arsenal, supported by robust detection and command systems, can credibly threaten a "Dead Hand Strike," a retaliatory attack launched after an adversary initiates a preemptive nuclear first strike.
In such a scenario, where national death is imminent, launching a Dead Hand Strike may be rational, as it ensures the adversary's destruction as well. This narrow set of circumstances-a situation in which there is an impending credible threat of a national death-is the only situation in which using nuclear weapons makes any sense. Their use in any other context risks triggering a chain of events that leads to national death.
By the early 1950s and certainly by the 1960s, this paradoxical condition-where using nuclear weapons might lead to national death-was well understood. In a world where nuclear-armed adversaries target and monitor one another, the concepts of a "Decapitation First Strike" and a "Dead Hand Reprisal Strike" became central to strategic thinking. This dynamic, known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), established that no nuclear-armed nation could use these weapons without risking national death. As a result, the sole purpose of maintaining them is to deter Decapitation Strikes. In every other scenario, where the probability of national death is not high, their use does not make sense.
In the 21st century, nuclear arsenals vary significantly. France and Britain maintain only a few hundred warheads each, while China has about 300. The U.S. and Russia, historically the largest nuclear powers, still hold thousands of warheads. However, the practical requirements for "nation-killing" capability are far smaller. With just 50 to 100 warheads targeting major cities and military installations, any nation could be effectively destroyed, as a single ~1-megaton bomb can obliterate a large metropolitan area.
In summary: nuclear weapons are nearly useless in practical terms. As the Russo-Ukrainian war demonstrates, they are ineffective for coercing a weaker neighboring state, deterring deep conventional attacks, defending the homeland from invasion, breaking strategic deadlocks, or escaping the quagmire of attrition warfare. Their historical utility in shaping the outcome of wars is nearly nonexistent, having influenced only one conflict decisively. In their 79-year history, nuclear weapons have only shaped a war’s outcome once: when the U.S. used the second and third nuclear devices to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compelling Japan to surrender on terms that avoided far greater losses.
Arguably, from 1945 until about 1952 or 1953, the U.S. could have used nuclear weapons again, as no other nation had the capacity to retaliate in kind. By 1953, however, it was thought that Soviet capabilities had grown sufficient to impose MAD, and by the 1960s, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union understood that these weapons’ primary purpose was deterrence, not use.
Today, the existence of multiple adversarial nuclear dyads-India vs. Pakistan, the West vs. Russia, China vs. its potential adversaries-ensures that a credible threat of "nation-killing" retaliation deters even the most reckless leaders. Nuclear weapons are of no practical value to Ukraine. They do not deter conventional or hybrid warfare and are useless for defense or winning wars. Observe: Russia, with one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, has failed to deter Ukraine from invading Kursk Oblast or crossing other supposed "red lines" touted as potential triggers for nuclear retaliation. Nuclear weapons are not a solution, and Ukraine is better off without them.
Boy was Clinton wrong.
I am profoundly saddened by the failure of the West: US, UK, and EU to allow the annexation of Crimea and not to confront Russia with a bold and unified direct intervention. Thousands of lives could have been saved if we had acted with boldness in accordance with the Budapest Accord.
I will forever blame Obama, Cameron, Junker, and Merkel for this strategic failure.
US and GB are obligated to protect Ukraine
Also Russia is but we see how that goes
Remember the time
Just to reminder you that Ukraine never was. All the nuclears were under soviet commands, with Rusian soldiers etc. In other words, Ukraine was under Rusian occupation.
Thank you KI,, ✨🇸🇪💞🇺🇦✨
👍💙🌻
never??
If Ukraine had a "2nd Amendment", would Russia have invaded?
More realistic question than the nuke one.
Yes. A civilian with a gun is not the same as a soldier with one. Just having many guns among civilians doesn't mean they'll stop an invading army
50's tech Dam
And I thought American missile silos were creepy...
IF YOU KEPT THEM YOU WOULDNT BE IN THIS SITUATION WITH RUSSIA! THIS IS SO SAD! I LOST MY HERITAGE!
Russia controls the nukes and Ukraine berlarus and Kazakhstan does not have resources to maintain them
These nukes were expired at the time of their transfer to the Russian Federation
We anonymous are always watching & so far life is going to be back on track soon ❤️
unfortune Ukraine being sold as a mid line, a collatoral, sandwiched between nato west, and russia former ussr. victim of 2 powers
my prayers to all Ukrainas
Why her Russian so weird?
Very interesting video i learnt about Ukraine's documents from a very interesting Netflix documentary i watched recently turning point: the bomb and the cold war. Such a shame Ukraine gave up their nukes for a deal Russia broke
You never can take words as a security guarantee. Big mistake
The Ukraine didn't have command and control of the Soviet strategic missile forces. That was in Moscow. It left 'its' bombers to rot on airfields without any maintenance. In fact it had to 'sell' some Tu-160s to Russia (which had produced them in the first place) in order to pay for its way past due gas bill. And Russia didn't receive any assistance from the US. In fact it got election meddling, and a second term of the drunk Yeltsin and the continued bargain basement sale of its assets.
Ukraine didnt have the launch codes and no ability to maintain the nukes. So completely useless weapons.
Russia didn’t think so, apparently. If you read Yeltsin’s phone calls with Clinton, he was very concerned and even threatened to cut off oil and gas and apply whatever pressure needed to force Ukraine to surrender them…
@@KyleH-bf5ri
Because the PALs could be cracked over a long enough period of time.
Ukraine!!!
You mean Ukraine didn't keep just one? That's a shame.
America and its Friends created a Rasaphobiy in the European continent so for that war is inevitable
Had us and nato not played ukraine russia would not invade ukraine
Yes Slick Willy, YOU WERE A MISTAKE !!!
Блин, селяне, кодов-то не было. Без кодов эти заряды металлолом радиоактивный.
Ukrainian engineers were heavily involved in the design and construction of those weapons, they could easily have reverse engineered them and there is no way russia would have launched their cruel invasion if Ukraine still had them!
@duckcensorship7446 at the very least they don't have a production of tritium in Ukraine. And without tritium refill these weapons are useless in 5-10 years even with codes and everything. Maintaining these weapons was totally impossible for Ukraine, it would be too costly, that's way it was surrendered so easily. It was much more of a liability than an asset.
what kind of language garbage is that? are you from Ural?
@vovyklembergsohn1778 What's wrong with Ural?
@@yexela it's a place where retarded people live
🙏🙏🙏
Marry me dasha! Love from Australia!
Your stunningly gorgeous girl
Unbelievable.
Propaganda 😂😂😂
Yeah yeah yeah......and as per Indians, India was world's No.1 economic power before the British (East India company took over), tell me something new !!
the guy in the video looks like Putin who changed to the good side of the force.
♥♥
As part of the USSR, Ukraine had no sovereignty over the nuclear weapons located on its territory. Soviet nuclear weapons have always been completely controlled by Moscow. As an example, US nuclear weapons, which are located in the states of North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico, are controlled by the federal government.
That is a terrible example. Those states all belong to the same country. The Soviet Union was a conglomerate of eastern countries governed together. Nowhere near the same thing. And most of the tech that went into anything Soviet worth mentioning was basically entirely based out of Ukraine.
@@dustinandtarynwolfe5540 The Soviet Union was not a conglomerate of Eastern countries. It was a single unitary state. The Soviet republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), which made up the USSR, did not have any sovereignty. At the same time, the socialist countries that were part of the Eastern Bloc (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea) were formally independent states.
@@АлексейСмирнов-к4лyou can spin it anyway you want but the Soviet republics were countries prior to soviet occupation. Why do you think 90+% of the Ukrainian population wanted independence? So sure, you can say that during the Soviet Union it was a "single unitary state" on paper but most of those republics (countries) wanted to be independent. Why do you think those republics had so many independent movements while under Soviet occupation?
Trump will end what little credibility America has.
@@icu17siberiaexcept Wilson wasn’t a wannabe dictator like Drumpt!
She looks stunning beautiful in the video thumbnail
Kalian bermimpi tentang kejayaan uni Soviet, tapi kalian membenci Rusia dan Belarusia...ahh .betapa absurdnya... percayalah mimpi hanya akan terwujud jika kalian bersama saudara kalian yang sejati..bukan bersama orang yang berpura-pura baik hanya untuk mengambil keuntungan dari kalian.. kalian selamanya adalah bangsa Slavia, bagaimana pun kalian ingin menjadi orang eropa barat..itu ada dalam DNA kalian
They need to get a job I'm broke and my street needs paved
Não aceitem ceder nenhum território. Por nada. Esqueçam acordos e tratados. Ninguém cumpre nada. Absolutamente nada. Desenvolvam armas (nucleares e convencionais), e surpreendam o mundo. É só isso que o invasor e o ocidente enchergam. Mais nada. Tenham todos, um ótimo sábado. Amém irmãos? Amém.
❤
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM THE WORLD BANK!
And become a debt slave like everyone else.
If roosha had stayed within their playground nukes would never have been there anywAy and most were constructed there and a lot were stationed there also 😚
16:40 this guy is such a snake
they were russian wepans not ukrainian
They were Soviet and whose territory were they on in 1994?
all bs 😭
They were NEVER Ukraines weapons
So why did they signed a deal with Ukrainian?😂
Too late to cry .