🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsandgenerals as well!
You could do a video on European defense alliances. Such as csdp, cedc, nordefco, lublin triangle, Greece-France agreement, Lancaster house, UK-Poland-Ukraine.
You have no access to state secrets and therefore you have absolutely no proof for any of this being real other than claims from Security Counsel member states and NGO´s. Talk about a giant misinformation fish story and you´re swallowing it, hook, line and sinker. That´s how ridiculously gullible you are.
5:07 - there is some difference between text in russian and translation, in the russian it doesn't say "control of nuclear weapons" rather - "strive to dispose all nuclear weapons"
No promise from russia can ever be trusted. And a promise from USA turned out to not mean troops on the ground. It did not mean a no-fly zone over Ukraine. And it turns out that it did not even mean guaranteed arms delieveries.
The biggest mistake made in the agreement is that they did not add a guarantor to this agreement. if the agreement had said:: 'if Russia breaks the agreement, the guarantor states will go to war on the side of Ukraine' then Putin would not have dared to attack.
They should of known better. Western nations have a long history of using loopholes or verbiage technicalities to get out of obligations they themselves signed up for. Ukraine is going to learn another hard lesson pretty soon too. Western nations have very short attention spans. Eventually no matter how much blood and money they put into a conflict eventually they will just yank all support and let whatever project they were working on completely collapse overnight. Afghanistan was just the latest example. Ukraine will be next.
@@CordovaMage "...loopholes or verbiage technicalities to get out of obligations..." Show that written obligation. The US has fulfilled it's part of the Budapest memorandum. Russia has not.
Nice analysis. A bit funny to hear our early era nuclear weapon names and specifications called by NATO gradation and terminology. Thank you for video!
What a fantastic video. Every school district in the USA should build their history programs around your videos. I used The Fall of The Western Roman Empire to kick off the beginning of the Middle Ages.
@@seanbeers5691 What makes UA-cam worse than, say, textbooks made in Texas, or videos posted somewhere other than UA-cam? You can say "they're biased" but so are both of the above. If it's used as a starter or a prompt and not just the whole curriculum I see no problem using a video from Kings and Generals in a classroom (it's not like they're saying they used blatant propaganda or misinformation like PragerU, which explicitly begs to be used in classrooms).
EU countries probably are punished by US for wanting/building nukes, while bad guys do what they want. If the shit hits the fan in the EU, US will probably be the first to run
@@wraith8323 Forgetting that most of there middle eastern neighbors had been since there independence’s were given money and weapons themselves from the Soviets and even later from the Russian Federation.
I wish more people spoke about this. It's crazy that Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons To Russia: With the promise that Russia will never attack them & respect their country. *Which makes this Attack from Russia even more awful than it already is. Such depraved war crimes Russia is commiting. I wish more countries would stick up for Ukraine over this insane violence Russia is committed to conducting
Ok, when people say "war crimes" just to emphasize a point, it really makes me not take their argument seriously. List me one war, where the invading force hasn't commited the so called "war crimes"? And it\s not crazy. 1st - nobody is letting Ukraine keep the weapons. Second, even if they keep them, they have NO USE for them, and cannot maintain them. Third, why would you even want every country to have nuclear weapons? Are people this dumb?
@@prescient8972 Those Russian speaker were living there even before Ukraine got it's independence.Those areas are historic Russian lands with ethnic Russian people which were foolishly given to Ukraine by USSR.Crimea for example was Russian for 200 years.
@@prescient8972 Russians conquered Crimea and owned it for 200 years.That make it theirs.Ukraine has no claim to it. It was only given to Ukraine by Soviets as a gift which it failed to appreciate. Original Ukraine is tiny.Majority of your land was given to you by soviets and big part of east is historically Russian land. Russian empire was mostly built upon by win-win.They didn't built their empire on the graves of natives.That's why 190+ native ethnicities exist in Russia.
@@j.k.1239 “Russians conquered Crimea and owned it for 200 years.That make it theirs.Ukraine has no claim to it.”, You do realize you can apply the same logic to the British when it comes to Ireland, they to owned Ireland for centuries, if Britain tomorrow decided to invade and take over all of Ireland again would you support them?
Libya gives up its nuclear weapons program on American promises, gets attacked by America & allies. The Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons on Russian promises, gets attacked by Russia. Lesson: if you have nukes, keep them.
@@LamLawIndyIt still would’ve took time and money to make there own, neither the newly established Ukraine government had at the time with a starving voter population that after Chernobyl weren't big on anything nuclear related
Yeah unless if anyone would finally halt the productions of nuclear weapons and use it for economic purposes instead then the threat of nuclear war would not exist today but that's impossible. 😭😭😭
Excellent work making this important moment of Ukrainian history easy understandable. Ukraine never had the rial opportunity to be a deterrent nuclear power in the very meaning of the term.
@@iiitiberiusiii3441 never said I‘m Ukrainian. And the Tryzub is a sign of support of Ukraine, so it will remain where it is until Ukraine wins the war and take its territories back. Perhaps you should watch the video again if you mean that Ukraine really had the chance of getting a real nuclear power. Let the myths go and adopt reality is far more favourable as it may looks at the first glance my friend.
Не переживай, спекуляцій на цьому каналі немає. Відео засновані на офіційних заявах та спостереженнях професіоналів(наприклад, інститут вивчення війни).
The West was very naive and optimistic about Russian democracy and behaviour in the 1990s. I think some of this was a legacy of good relations with Gorbachev.
The thing that this well researched documentary misses out on the fact Ukraine didnt need to keep all those nukes in order to maintain a nuclear deterrent. And could have maintained a nuclear deterrent economically without having to give up all the nukes. As well Ukrainian custodial troops had full operational control over tactical nuclear weapons such as ground artillery tactical nukes and ALCMs with nuclear warheads. As well they had access to refined nuclear material that could enable them to quickly build strategic nukes if they needed to. So many other important things that the doc missed out on. Additionally they had tampered with the PAL systems on the strategic nukes to prevent Russia from launching them within Ukraine which meant neither Russia had operational control over any Ukrainian nukes. So major points missing from this.
So in Summary: Ukraine doesn't have the money to maintain the nukes and most of the nukes are long range(to be used on the US) not medium or short range so there is no strategic value in keeping them
The only way they could have been used regardless is if Ukraine has dismantled them and repurposed them (launch/arming codes were held in Moscow). So the very act of making them usable to Ukraine would have meant they could have been put on Ukraines medium range or short range missiles
If examined closely, it’s clear that it wasn’t reasonable to keep nuclear weapons and no one really debates that. The stupid thing was to give up strategic missiles and bombers that could’ve been used with conventional warheads. The bottom line is - never ever at any circumstances trust Russia. They will break out of any deal they signed without a moment of doubt
@@Gvozd111 They didn't keep those strategic conventional assets because Ukraine couldn't afford it. Ukraine's economy seriously suffered after the fall of the Soviet Union so they can't reasonably be expected to maintain a strategic bomber fleet, unless you're North Korea and economic development is considered secondary.
@@firebird4491 not true. Ukraine could definitely afford it. Russians didn’t do shit on many of those missiles for decades and they still fly apparently. The question was that nobody even thought of Russia actually invading so selling them those weapons was seen as good deal
@@Gvozd111 Strategic bombers are expensive to maintain and aren’t a sufficient deterrent to prevent Russia from invading. So given their economy was in the shitter, they could not afford them. Given the circumstances, it was a good deal. Not to mention Ukraine was reliant on Russian energy.
It's shocking how many people here seem to skipped over the part of the video where he explained in great detail why Ukraine couldn't have kept those nukes even if they wanted to.
Every region was supposed to have it's single token regional nuclear power while 2 super powers of US And USSR alone with intercontinental capabilities to limit proliferation but then we got china india pakistan, israel and south africa and north korea suddenly appearing as contenders
Yea but those countries are super powers, just as much as russia claims to be a super power. Pakistan got a larger population than russia. Israel is being more high tech than russia. And North Korea have a bigger army than russia. So it would make sense for those countries to have nukes than russia.
@@daspotato895 Well if a third world country like russia with an economy the size of Italy, and the male life expecancy is shorter than that of Haiti, and a third of all household do not have water in their homes... if such a country like russia can claim to be a super power. Then surely can the largest economy of Africa also claim to be a super power.
How weird it is to hear a claim that Ukraine would've been unable to maintain nuclear weapons whereas say DPRK or Palistan were able to do so. The pressure from Russia was understandable, given its aggressive intentions. But the pressure from the US on Ukraine to disarm was a strategic miscalculation
You ignored the crucial part following this sentence. The difference is that Ukraine never had operational control over these nukes, regardless of ownership.
@@kurteisner67 yeah, of course i did, you got planes to launch them, rockets, warheads and pilots etc. Right now s-200 are made into ballistic missiles with good enough accuracy even for those. I somehow think that would be manageable to get, if not silo-launched, than at least air launched rockets.
What was the name of that documentary on Netflix talking about the United States, how they were gonna trade Degrading Uranium for new uranium. Then found out about Russia's biological program. Does anybody remember the name of that.
Sukker punch, big mistake UKRN trusted the word of more poweful states to keep their WORD. We guarantee protection, for giving up their barganing ace. Moral of the story, do not trust the word of powerful people, it has happend before, remember 'Peace in our time'
war brother of mine said one obvious thing too me that I never thought of before: Ukraine needed to remain let's say 50 warheads. It is reasonable number to maintain. Is it a working solution to prevent russian invasion we don't know as such thing already happened. So it is just a topic to think about.
Hey, there's a typo in the title. It should say "Why Was Ukraine Strongarmed Into Giving Up Its Nukes?" I'm waiting for the sequel. Will placing their trust in Russia backfire? I'm sure it will be fine.
I believe that views get counted* when the viewer is part way into the video - but it's still impressive. * plus of course the time travellers and the people playing it at 140 times speed.
The conclusion of the video is absolutely incorrect. The Budapest memorandum, however vague it was, was a document that provided guarantees of the security to the state that gave up world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Failure to adhere to the guarantees provided to such state will reverberate in the decades to come, with around twenty nations capable of developing a nuclear program already thinking about it now (or even starting it at this very moment). The world is moving towards the rule of power, not law, and nobody wants to get caught off-guard by the nuclear blackmail of rogue nuclear states, displayed by russia already. And the atrocities it commits every day in Ukraine is something no other state, especially capable of creating nuclear weapons, wants to see in its territory. And the example of Ukraine shows that the only true guarantee of this not happening is possession of said weapons.
What is more, statement that Ukraine was not able to keep a fraction of the available arsenal - especially tactical - is incorrect as well. With the amount of nuclear facilities and knowledge available, Ukraine was capable of developing its own nuclear program from scratch, not to mention the fact that some of the arsenal could have been converted - even if only small portion of it. North Korea, with no nuclear basis, much smaller potential was able to develop its own nukes from scratch. For Ukraine, this would have been a matter of years, not decades.
@@Phenigma The idea is that if you lose control of a weapon it can't be used. Terrorists would love to get their hands on one that isn't coded. It would be easier to build their own.
That’s a ridiculous line pushed by those who wanted a defenceless Ukraine. Th actual professionals running the programs certainly didn’t and do not agree with that
@@yurilytviak9066 Prove that Ukraine had any nuke codes. But let's say you are correct and remove that from the equation. Could Ukraine afford to maintain them ? Obviously, no they couldn't. Either way Ukraine couldn't keep them. If"s are always a pointless argument. Hindsight and all that. We have no idea how current events will affect the future. It's only us looking back that makes it look like a wrong decision. Was it really a bad decision or a necessary one. I guess we will be arguing about that for a very long time.
I'm pro-Ukraine and I wouldn't want them to have Nukes. Putin wouldn't haved cared and if it turned bad for Ukraine they might have decided to use the option of last resort. I do agree that the west and the US in particular have an obligation here, but I don't think US politicians have any honor anymore. (as opposed to what little most politician do)
There would have been 2 risks that I can see: 1) Unmaintained they would have deteriorated and become a hazard 2) Putin would have used them as an excuse to invade. Deterence effect? Well they can't be used at short range and we have an invading army that dug defensive trenches near Chernobyl.
@@andrewharrison8436they can easily be used on short range, the small war head is the only part that's responsible for the detonation, the missile is there for transport No dares attack someone with nukes, why do you think N.Korea still exists? Why nobody stopped them from figuring out how to use the nukes in their posession? It's because just a few working nukes are all you need to devastate a nation and the risk of that isn't worth it
A bit of BS argument about nuclear weapons being totally ineffective against Russia. The nuclear capable cruise missiles and tactical nukes would be plenty useful. And the ICBMs would be effective against the targets beyond the Urals mountain range
There was a Ruzzian that I knew, who told me about it's people in statement that were saying: "We acknowledge only brute force as legal guarantee of something, while seeing any sign treaties not more worthy than toilet paper."
Ofc it was a HUGE mistake trusting in RuZZia and the West for protection guarantees, huge mistake! What Ukraine could have done, considering difficalt economical situation it found it self and lack of maintenance and launch command centers, is to keep at least 10 % of weapons, like several tactical warheands and several strategic once, with plains to carry weapons, whish they already had. It would have cost less and Ukraine would had become nuclear state. I can promis you, nobody would have ever tried anything against Ukraine, and Ukraine would have gaind respect and support from the rest of the world. Look at Ukraine now! Trusting in these who really do not care and one side even is trying to take over the whole country..
Bad idea. Ukraine would be diplomatically isolated from both the east and west. Russia would be furious about Ukraine not returning what they saw as their nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation was a hard line for the US. Ukraine would not receive any aid money from the west and even a small nuclear arsenal is still a burden. You also forget that Ukraine is a democracy. You think the Ukrainian people would be ok with their government standing in the way of economic opportunity for the sake of maintaining nuclear weapons? They didn't even think an all-out war with Russia was likely right up until the invasion, so why would they be ok with sacrifices to their standard of living for military security in the 90s?.
It won't be allowed become NATO member. Ukraine was made to give up it's nukes because West preferred to deal rather with one big, but more or less predictable Russia than multiple mini-Russia's. What back in the days was Ukraine? It was a mini-Russia. Plus, don't forget just 5 years before Ukraine was made to give up on nukes american president in ukrainian parliament was telling not to get out USSR and british prime-minister was saying as far as UK doesnt have diplomatic relations with California, why would they have it with so-called Ukraine. In fact, West was giving Ukraine into russian paws because they didn't see it as an independent self-sufficient state and didn't know what to expect from it. Ukraine, back in the days also didn't have a clear pro-western geopolitical orientation and wouldn't have it for more than decade. When it got first pro-western president, it's neighbors already joined EU and NATO, Russia rised up to level no one wanted to mess with it, Ukraine was corrupted to ashes and it's army was only a shadow of previous itself. Nowadays, besides Ukraine got into a full on scale war, lost some territories and West recognizes it and its fight for freedom not much changed. Trust me, Ukraine won't become NATO member even after this war. It can happen only if: a) it gets crimea back b) reforms and get rid of enormous corrution c) Russia is weaker than it was in 90-s
I totally and profoundly disagree with the thesis that nuclear deterrent would have minimal chances to succeed. It would definitely succeed. You think Putin would want ukranian land more than Russia to exist? Furthermore Ukraine case has shown that smaller countries can be safeonly by having nuclear weapons. Including nato countries. There is 0% chance that the US will go to war with Russia over Baltic countries or any other country for that matter.
I don't why this question/statement pops up all the time. It's never simple. Even William Spaniel said that it wasn't impossible to have Ukraine keep nuclear weapons. If they could, Ukraine would be worse shape than it is now.
If hard times create strong men, and strong men create good times. I can only imagine how strong the Ukrainians will be at the end of this conflict. They got this!
@@calebbearup4282українці нарешті чекають цих гарних часів. Останні 120 років дуже важкі для України, сильні люди повстають, вони завжди, але гарні часи не настають.
Libya and Iraq still exist so giving up pursuing nukes hasn't really hurt them. But you are right regarding Ukraine so it will only make countries want to have nukes.
As William Spaniel said in one of his videos: “post-Soviet Ukraine was no more a nuclear power then as Montana is a nuclear power today”; the nuclear codes are in Washington DC (& Moscow), not in Helena (or Kyiv).
It was a huge mistake, Putler would never dare to attack Ukraine if that had just a fraction of that nuke arsenal, for he is a coward shaking in his bunker every time something happens and his safety might be compromised in any way.
I honestly think that giving up the weapons was probably a good idea not only economically speaking, but let’s just face it. Russia was always going to find a reason to fight and conquer Ukraine, especially if the nationalist were in power which they are. They would’ve used nuclear weapons, that were basically irrelevant due to maintenance issues, etc. as a reason to invade it might have even happened sooner
When this video came out, I thanked the group for making this as not enough is said about this…but now, I find the summery of the Budapest Memorandum, to be a little weak. Any “marginal” amount of nuclear weapons that could be brought to the Russian onslaught, would’ve stopped Putin in his tracks. Yes, there are a million other universes worth of potential possibilities of what could’ve or would’ve happened, but the fact is, the US and Britain were complicit with Russia in Neutering Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. And it is understandable as to the general motives on all parties, but, if Ukraine refused to give up their nukes, there’s nothing anyone could do. If Ukraine had even a “marginal” amount of nuclear weapons at best, that’s still enough to take out portions of Russia. To date, Russia has never attacked another nuclear weapon state, or one within the borders of a nuclear umbrella. And yet, here is Ukraine, suffering the worst war since WW2 and suffering the brunt of an onslaught that together, all of Nato was designed to deter. And all of this could’ve been avoided by letting them have at least a small amount of nuclear weapons. Case and Point; the U.K. 300 nukes, and we still have to pretend that this little island has any real say in world affairs. Then compare them to Canada. A nation, geographically dwarfing the UK and a population 2/3rds and no one listens to a thing we say. The UK and America helped make this mess and I don’t care how pedantic one wants to get about the vagueness of the language of the Budapest memo. agreement. You and your teams created this problem and it is up to you guys to give Ukraine everything they need to stop it.
The UK and America did not help make this mess. Ukraine did not want nuclear weapons. They used them to try and negotiate a security guarantee but had no real desire or could afford to keep them. Also since Ukraine did have said nuclear arsenal, they did not and were not under any obligation to give them up. They chose to do that. Also, most post soviet eastern European nation joined NATO while Ukraine still wanted a relationship with Russia so decided to put their trust in Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine on their own due to paranoia.
In the end it was russia who started this war and should bear the responsability for people dying in it. But Germanys gas dependency and Ostpolitik deserves much criticism too. So does France weak military help to Ukraine and Macron treasonous statements. And USAs defence guarantees have been of very little value. And if the MAGA republicans halt all support to Ukraine no one will ever take a security guarantee from the USA seriously again.
🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsandgenerals as well!
You could do a video on European defense alliances.
Such as csdp, cedc, nordefco, lublin triangle, Greece-France agreement, Lancaster house, UK-Poland-Ukraine.
Ukraine was too corrupt for US to leave them with all those nukes.What stops Ukraine from selling them on the black market?....
Hello can you make video who will rule china After xijingping
Love your videos exclusively Ukraine but I have a question what is a UA-cam Patriots thanks for your patience?.
You have no access to state secrets and therefore you have absolutely no proof for any of this being real other than claims from Security Counsel member states and NGO´s. Talk about a giant misinformation fish story and you´re swallowing it, hook, line and sinker. That´s how ridiculously gullible you are.
Never, ever, voluntarily give up your ability to defend yourself. EVER
Sounds like you never paid attention to the video.
True,
Look at what happened to Iraq
5:07 - there is some difference between text in russian and translation, in the russian it doesn't say "control of nuclear weapons" rather - "strive to dispose all nuclear weapons"
We thought US guarantees are beyond "deeply concern".
Moral of the story: Never believe a promise.
No promise from russia can ever be trusted.
And a promise from USA turned out to not mean troops on the ground. It did not mean a no-fly zone over Ukraine. And it turns out that it did not even mean guaranteed arms delieveries.
Definitely not from politicians and above all Russia.
The US has kept it's part of the Budapest Memorandum.
@@johnbox271its not hard to keep promises that benefit us 😉
NEVER believe russia or russians
The biggest mistake made in the agreement is that they did not add a guarantor to this agreement. if the agreement had said:: 'if Russia breaks the agreement, the guarantor states will go to war on the side of Ukraine' then Putin would not have dared to attack.
As if their nuclear arsenal doesn't exist.
@@MCMLXXXVICCXII without nukes russia is nothing but a weak excuse of a country
"...add a guarantor..." That could never be kept? For what purpose?
They should of known better. Western nations have a long history of using loopholes or verbiage technicalities to get out of obligations they themselves signed up for. Ukraine is going to learn another hard lesson pretty soon too. Western nations have very short attention spans. Eventually no matter how much blood and money they put into a conflict eventually they will just yank all support and let whatever project they were working on completely collapse overnight. Afghanistan was just the latest example. Ukraine will be next.
@@CordovaMage "...loopholes or verbiage technicalities to get out of obligations..."
Show that written obligation. The US has fulfilled it's part of the Budapest memorandum. Russia has not.
Nice analysis. A bit funny to hear our early era nuclear weapon names and specifications called by NATO gradation and terminology. Thank you for video!
What a fantastic video. Every school district in the USA should build their history programs around your videos. I used The Fall of The Western Roman Empire to kick off the beginning of the Middle Ages.
I've said this to them for five years now
@@seanbeers5691that's bcuz Kings and General doesn't pretty good job at explaining things as neutrally as possible
@@seanbeers5691 What makes UA-cam worse than, say, textbooks made in Texas, or videos posted somewhere other than UA-cam? You can say "they're biased" but so are both of the above. If it's used as a starter or a prompt and not just the whole curriculum I see no problem using a video from Kings and Generals in a classroom (it's not like they're saying they used blatant propaganda or misinformation like PragerU, which explicitly begs to be used in classrooms).
thanks for covering this important topic!
Great video as usual. Really dig the retrowave background music.
JENIUS move...
Lesson for history: if you have nuclear weapons, don't give them up. And if you don't have them, what are you waiting for to get them?
Yes, and it's a scary one. Be assured, at least twenty states already took their lesson from Ukraine and are working on their homework.
@@iiitiberiusiii3441 which 20 states ?
EU countries probably are punished by US for wanting/building nukes, while bad guys do what they want. If the shit hits the fan in the EU, US will probably be the first to run
Poor Ukraine, poor Poland. Those guys just can’t catch a historical break
Because keeping and maintaining nukes is BLOODY EXPENSIVE.
war is more expensive anyway and not only in money
That is the correct answer
But Ukraine somehow managed to cary on them for years
War is more expensive
@@wraith8323 Forgetting that most of there middle eastern neighbors had been since there independence’s were given money and weapons themselves from the Soviets and even later from the Russian Federation.
Kim Jung Un will never give up its Nuclear Weapons. Nor should he. Lesson learned from these countries
I wish more people spoke about this. It's crazy that Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons To Russia: With the promise that Russia will never attack them & respect their country. *Which makes this Attack from Russia even more awful than it already is. Such depraved war crimes Russia is commiting. I wish more countries would stick up for Ukraine over this insane violence Russia is committed to conducting
Ok, when people say "war crimes" just to emphasize a point, it really makes me not take their argument seriously. List me one war, where the invading force hasn't commited the so called "war crimes"? And it\s not crazy. 1st - nobody is letting Ukraine keep the weapons. Second, even if they keep them, they have NO USE for them, and cannot maintain them. Third, why would you even want every country to have nuclear weapons? Are people this dumb?
@@prescient8972 Yes, you proved his point.
@@prescient8972 Those Russian speaker were living there even before Ukraine got it's independence.Those areas are historic Russian lands with ethnic Russian people which were foolishly given to Ukraine by USSR.Crimea for example was Russian for 200 years.
@@prescient8972 Russians conquered Crimea and owned it for 200 years.That make it theirs.Ukraine has no claim to it. It was only given to Ukraine by Soviets as a gift which it failed to appreciate.
Original Ukraine is tiny.Majority of your land was given to you by soviets and big part of east is historically Russian land.
Russian empire was mostly built upon by win-win.They didn't built their empire on the graves of natives.That's why 190+ native ethnicities exist in Russia.
@@j.k.1239 “Russians conquered Crimea and owned it for 200 years.That make it theirs.Ukraine has no claim to it.”, You do realize you can apply the same logic to the British when it comes to Ireland, they to owned Ireland for centuries, if Britain tomorrow decided to invade and take over all of Ireland again would you support them?
Libya gives up its nuclear weapons program on American promises, gets attacked by America & allies.
The Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons on Russian promises, gets attacked by Russia.
Lesson: if you have nukes, keep them.
Ukraine couldnt afford them even if they wanted to keep the nukes.
@@brandonlyon730 The tactical ones probably wouldn't have been too costly to keep.
@@LamLawIndyIt still would’ve took time and money to make there own, neither the newly established Ukraine government had at the time with a starving voter population that after Chernobyl weren't big on anything nuclear related
Yeah unless if anyone would finally halt the productions of nuclear weapons and use it for economic purposes instead then the threat of nuclear war would not exist today but that's impossible. 😭😭😭
Ahh yes, the CIS, the Confederacy of independent systems, my favorite
CIS male, CIS norms, CIS person
Roger Roger
So now we know why Russia was so confident about invading Ukraine at first.
Wow. Great video. Really clarified some stuff for me.
Excellent work making this important moment of Ukrainian history easy understandable. Ukraine never had the rial opportunity to be a deterrent nuclear power in the very meaning of the term.
Russian, pease stop posting nonsense and remove Tryzub from your avatar. No Ukrainian would write this kind of disinformation.
Ruzzian bot write as "ukrainian"
@@iiitiberiusiii3441 never said I‘m Ukrainian. And the Tryzub is a sign of support of Ukraine, so it will remain where it is until Ukraine wins the war and take its territories back. Perhaps you should watch the video again if you mean that Ukraine really had the chance of getting a real nuclear power. Let the myths go and adopt reality is far more favourable as it may looks at the first glance my friend.
This is the first Ukraine video I have watched from you since I don't want speculations about a current conflict. Thanks.
Не переживай, спекуляцій на цьому каналі немає. Відео засновані на офіційних заявах та спостереженнях професіоналів(наприклад, інститут вивчення війни).
Thanks for covering this topic. Very interesting
Seems like most commentator haven't watched the full video😂
An interesting piece
The West was very naive and optimistic about Russian democracy and behaviour in the 1990s. I think some of this was a legacy of good relations with Gorbachev.
Another interesting and informative video on Ukraine.
A rather cool dance scene I must say. Go dude go!!!
Thank you very much for these clear and detailed video about Ukraine. 😊😊
Great vid. You should do one on how Israel got their nukes.
The thing that this well researched documentary misses out on the fact Ukraine didnt need to keep all those nukes in order to maintain a nuclear deterrent. And could have maintained a nuclear deterrent economically without having to give up all the nukes. As well Ukrainian custodial troops had full operational control over tactical nuclear weapons such as ground artillery tactical nukes and ALCMs with nuclear warheads. As well they had access to refined nuclear material that could enable them to quickly build strategic nukes if they needed to. So many other important things that the doc missed out on. Additionally they had tampered with the PAL systems on the strategic nukes to prevent Russia from launching them within Ukraine which meant neither Russia had operational control over any Ukrainian nukes. So major points missing from this.
A video on Ukraine selling its TU160's would be very interesting and relevant.
Thanks for the video & information
Why did Ukraine give up it's nukes? So that Russia never ever attacks them. 🎉😂
Yeah they signed a *treaty* saying they'd protect Ukrainian sovereignty. Shows you the value of making deals with Russia.
@@whatisahandle_69 exactly
@@whatisahandle_69Russia wanted a puppet, a buffer state, just like they want now. It's all geopolitics.
@@whatisahandle_69treaty*
Treaty ≠ contract, latter one goes for finance or procurement
@@yakumoyukari4405 that's pure semantics but I'll edit my comment 🙄
you guys rock!
Important background information to aid in understanding the current war in Ukraine.
Missed a golden opportunity for a "come and take it" opportunity.
14:43 thank you for this :D
I still don't understand why they had to give up their strategic bombers and non nuclear long range missiles
Because they couldn't maintain or arm them... I felt it was clearly stated
@@Shoelessjoe78 Ehm what? Not at all.
@@not_your_business666they state *multiple* times that Ukraine had no real control over them nor could afford to maintain them
@@not_your_business666 $ money... They didn't have the money.
What part of “the long range missiles were designed for targeting USA, and were error-prone at short-/intermediate-ranges” did you not understand? 🤔
Great content...thanks!
It looks strange when observed from the present time. But then the situation was a little bit different.
They trusted Russia. Bad mistake.
Moral of the story do not give up nukes if you don’t want to get genocided.
So in Summary:
Ukraine doesn't have the money to maintain the nukes and most of the nukes are long range(to be used on the US) not medium or short range so there is no strategic value in keeping them
The only way they could have been used regardless is if Ukraine has dismantled them and repurposed them (launch/arming codes were held in Moscow). So the very act of making them usable to Ukraine would have meant they could have been put on Ukraines medium range or short range missiles
If examined closely, it’s clear that it wasn’t reasonable to keep nuclear weapons and no one really debates that. The stupid thing was to give up strategic missiles and bombers that could’ve been used with conventional warheads.
The bottom line is - never ever at any circumstances trust Russia. They will break out of any deal they signed without a moment of doubt
@@Gvozd111 They didn't keep those strategic conventional assets because Ukraine couldn't afford it. Ukraine's economy seriously suffered after the fall of the Soviet Union so they can't reasonably be expected to maintain a strategic bomber fleet, unless you're North Korea and economic development is considered secondary.
@@firebird4491 not true. Ukraine could definitely afford it. Russians didn’t do shit on many of those missiles for decades and they still fly apparently. The question was that nobody even thought of Russia actually invading so selling them those weapons was seen as good deal
@@Gvozd111 Strategic bombers are expensive to maintain and aren’t a sufficient deterrent to prevent Russia from invading. So given their economy was in the shitter, they could not afford them. Given the circumstances, it was a good deal. Not to mention Ukraine was reliant on Russian energy.
It's shocking how many people here seem to skipped over the part of the video where he explained in great detail why Ukraine couldn't have kept those nukes even if they wanted to.
Did Ukraine have no chance of maintaining its nuclear weapons? Well, look at North Korea. They could have kept it, at a costly price.
Every region was supposed to have it's single token regional nuclear power while 2 super powers of US And USSR alone with intercontinental capabilities to limit proliferation but then we got china india pakistan, israel and south africa and north korea suddenly appearing as contenders
Yea but those countries are super powers, just as much as russia claims to be a super power. Pakistan got a larger population than russia. Israel is being more high tech than russia. And North Korea have a bigger army than russia. So it would make sense for those countries to have nukes than russia.
@@nattygsbord Ah yes, the great superpower of South Africa.
@@daspotato895
Well if a third world country like russia with an economy the size of Italy, and the male life expecancy is shorter than that of Haiti, and a third of all household do not have water in their homes... if such a country like russia can claim to be a super power.
Then surely can the largest economy of Africa also claim to be a super power.
@@nattygsbord You know what? Fair enough.
what kind of nonsense are you talking about...
This is slightly ignorant, there was significant pressure to disarm Ukraine including world bank, and sanctions
How weird it is to hear a claim that Ukraine would've been unable to maintain nuclear weapons whereas say DPRK or Palistan were able to do so.
The pressure from Russia was understandable, given its aggressive intentions. But the pressure from the US on Ukraine to disarm was a strategic miscalculation
Russia is singlehandedly making the case for why states should pursue nuclear weaponry ambitions.
Ніщо так в цьому світі краще не мотивує себе захищати, як Росія.
Bht hi Mushkil Shikar hai.
aap ne phr bhi Shikar kar lia.
per birds bht zada dare howe lagte is area main
"Minimal effective deterrance value". Right, even NK is not crushed with their tiny arsenal, despite the shit they do.
You ignored the crucial part following this sentence. The difference is that Ukraine never had operational control over these nukes, regardless of ownership.
@@kurteisner67 yeah, of course i did, you got planes to launch them, rockets, warheads and pilots etc. Right now s-200 are made into ballistic missiles with good enough accuracy even for those.
I somehow think that would be manageable to get, if not silo-launched, than at least air launched rockets.
Interesting.
What was the name of that documentary on Netflix talking about the United States, how they were gonna trade Degrading Uranium for new uranium. Then found out about Russia's biological program. Does anybody remember the name of that.
Ive never understood why the Ukraine gave up their TU-160 bombers
Sukker punch, big mistake UKRN trusted the word of more poweful states to keep their WORD. We guarantee protection, for giving up their barganing ace. Moral of the story, do not trust the word of powerful people, it has happend before, remember 'Peace in our time'
It was a good idea at the time.
war brother of mine said one obvious thing too me that I never thought of before: Ukraine needed to remain let's say 50 warheads. It is reasonable number to maintain. Is it a working solution to prevent russian invasion we don't know as such thing already happened. So it is just a topic to think about.
Well hindsight is 20/20. Im sure we all did dumb shit we regret in our past.
How to make these types of content can anyone tell me ?
thank you from Odesa
Nuclear accident happened in 1986, not 1996
A strong case for nuclear rearmanent
Hey, there's a typo in the title. It should say "Why Was Ukraine Strongarmed Into Giving Up Its Nukes?" I'm waiting for the sequel. Will placing their trust in Russia backfire? I'm sure it will be fine.
After just 18 seconds of uploading this video there are 147 views
Are the views uploaded with the video?
Patreon supporter and Channel member early access.
I believe that views get counted* when the viewer is part way into the video - but it's still impressive.
* plus of course the time travellers and the people playing it at 140 times speed.
@@Xazamas better answer right here I forgot the early access part 😂
The conclusion of the video is absolutely incorrect. The Budapest memorandum, however vague it was, was a document that provided guarantees of the security to the state that gave up world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Failure to adhere to the guarantees provided to such state will reverberate in the decades to come, with around twenty nations capable of developing a nuclear program already thinking about it now (or even starting it at this very moment). The world is moving towards the rule of power, not law, and nobody wants to get caught off-guard by the nuclear blackmail of rogue nuclear states, displayed by russia already. And the atrocities it commits every day in Ukraine is something no other state, especially capable of creating nuclear weapons, wants to see in its territory. And the example of Ukraine shows that the only true guarantee of this not happening is possession of said weapons.
What is more, statement that Ukraine was not able to keep a fraction of the available arsenal - especially tactical - is incorrect as well. With the amount of nuclear facilities and knowledge available, Ukraine was capable of developing its own nuclear program from scratch, not to mention the fact that some of the arsenal could have been converted - even if only small portion of it. North Korea, with no nuclear basis, much smaller potential was able to develop its own nukes from scratch. For Ukraine, this would have been a matter of years, not decades.
Ukraine had the nukes, but Russia had the codes. And Ukraine couldn't afford to maintain them. So it made sense to give them away.
You don't need codes for every nuclear weapon.
@@Phenigma
The idea is that if you lose control of a weapon it can't be used. Terrorists would love to get their hands on one that isn't coded. It would be easier to build their own.
Surely the scientific might of an entire country could break a few codes.
That’s a ridiculous line pushed by those who wanted a defenceless Ukraine. Th actual professionals running the programs certainly didn’t and do not agree with that
@@yurilytviak9066
Prove that Ukraine had any nuke codes.
But let's say you are correct and remove that from the equation. Could Ukraine afford to maintain them ?
Obviously, no they couldn't. Either way Ukraine couldn't keep them.
If"s are always a pointless argument.
Hindsight and all that.
We have no idea how current events will affect the future. It's only us looking back that makes it look like a wrong decision. Was it really a bad decision or a necessary one. I guess we will be arguing about that for a very long time.
If they didnt do it, or just kept a small number around, then the sittuation would definetly be different
It wouldn’t be different nobody was letting them keep them lol
I'm pro-Ukraine and I wouldn't want them to have Nukes. Putin wouldn't haved cared and if it turned bad for Ukraine they might have decided to use the option of last resort.
I do agree that the west and the US in particular have an obligation here, but I don't think US politicians have any honor anymore. (as opposed to what little most politician do)
There would have been 2 risks that I can see:
1) Unmaintained they would have deteriorated and become a hazard
2) Putin would have used them as an excuse to invade.
Deterence effect? Well they can't be used at short range and we have an invading army that dug defensive trenches near Chernobyl.
@@andrewharrison8436your second point is so stupid lol
@@andrewharrison8436they can easily be used on short range, the small war head is the only part that's responsible for the detonation, the missile is there for transport
No dares attack someone with nukes, why do you think N.Korea still exists? Why nobody stopped them from figuring out how to use the nukes in their posession? It's because just a few working nukes are all you need to devastate a nation and the risk of that isn't worth it
Ukraine's poorest decision ever!!!!
A bit of BS argument about nuclear weapons being totally ineffective against Russia. The nuclear capable cruise missiles and tactical nukes would be plenty useful. And the ICBMs would be effective against the targets beyond the Urals mountain range
14:44 wtf?
Great mistake that already costs thousands lives🤷♂️
Казахстан формально більше Радянський союз, ніж Росія, так як Казахстан вийшов останнім із союзу.
we are not robots we are humans
Wow maybe they should have kept them .
There was a Ruzzian that I knew, who told me about it's people in statement that were saying: "We acknowledge only brute force as legal guarantee of something, while seeing any sign treaties not more worthy than toilet paper."
Only what if 🤔
Ofc it was a HUGE mistake trusting in RuZZia and the West for protection guarantees, huge mistake!
What Ukraine could have done, considering difficalt economical situation it found it self and lack of maintenance and launch command centers, is to keep at least 10 % of weapons, like several tactical warheands and several strategic once, with plains to carry weapons, whish they already had. It would have cost less and Ukraine would had become nuclear state. I can promis you, nobody would have ever tried anything against Ukraine, and Ukraine would have gaind respect and support from the rest of the world.
Look at Ukraine now! Trusting in these who really do not care and one side even is trying to take over the whole country..
Bad idea. Ukraine would be diplomatically isolated from both the east and west. Russia would be furious about Ukraine not returning what they saw as their nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation was a hard line for the US. Ukraine would not receive any aid money from the west and even a small nuclear arsenal is still a burden. You also forget that Ukraine is a democracy. You think the Ukrainian people would be ok with their government standing in the way of economic opportunity for the sake of maintaining nuclear weapons? They didn't even think an all-out war with Russia was likely right up until the invasion, so why would they be ok with sacrifices to their standard of living for military security in the 90s?.
8:45 Україна не була в СНД.
Bro, your t-shirts are too expensive. Make them cheap so that we can buy them😢
What a coincidence. I was arguing with a colleague about this today. And a few later this shows up in my feed. Now I cam show him this.
No money to maintain nuke
Because Ukrainian leadership at that time was incompetent and had no idea what they were subjecting Ukraine to.
They would have been wise to insist on NATO membership
Asto unding to see that Ukraines support within the US is dying because of one side
Hi bro pps make india history like gupta empire series,karkota dynasty King Lalit Aditya muktpid, and trapite struggle for 2century
Ukraine should have asked to join NATO or to have similliar agreement with USA as USA tas with Taiwan. That was our biggest mistake
РФ как бы тоже хотела вступить НАТО но без России НАТО нахуй никому не нужно ибо блок сугубо для войны
It won't be allowed become NATO member. Ukraine was made to give up it's nukes because West preferred to deal rather with one big, but more or less predictable Russia than multiple mini-Russia's. What back in the days was Ukraine? It was a mini-Russia. Plus, don't forget just 5 years before Ukraine was made to give up on nukes american president in ukrainian parliament was telling not to get out USSR and british prime-minister was saying as far as UK doesnt have diplomatic relations with California, why would they have it with so-called Ukraine.
In fact, West was giving Ukraine into russian paws because they didn't see it as an independent self-sufficient state and didn't know what to expect from it. Ukraine, back in the days also didn't have a clear pro-western geopolitical orientation and wouldn't have it for more than decade. When it got first pro-western president, it's neighbors already joined EU and NATO, Russia rised up to level no one wanted to mess with it, Ukraine was corrupted to ashes and it's army was only a shadow of previous itself.
Nowadays, besides Ukraine got into a full on scale war, lost some territories and West recognizes it and its fight for freedom not much changed. Trust me, Ukraine won't become NATO member even after this war. It can happen only if: a) it gets crimea back b) reforms and get rid of enormous corrution c) Russia is weaker than it was in 90-s
Suva tayanma, Rusqa inanma.
Waters do be treacherous
@@KingsandGeneralsthat's saying in Crimean Tatar that basically mean do not trust russians.
Crimea will be free of russian occupation with Crimean Tatars as true owners of its land!
I do understand Turkic languages. The joke was to say that water is bad, without saying Russia is bad, but also implying it.
I totally and profoundly disagree with the thesis that nuclear deterrent would have minimal chances to succeed. It would definitely succeed. You think Putin would want ukranian land more than Russia to exist? Furthermore Ukraine case has shown that smaller countries can be safeonly by having nuclear weapons. Including nato countries. There is 0% chance that the US will go to war with Russia over Baltic countries or any other country for that matter.
Didn’t have to give up all of them 🤷♂️
I don't why this question/statement pops up all the time. It's never simple. Even William Spaniel said that it wasn't impossible to have Ukraine keep nuclear weapons. If they could, Ukraine would be worse shape than it is now.
Why does this sound like Ukraine kept making things difficult to get money out of the United States😂
If hard times create strong men, and strong men create good times. I can only imagine how strong the Ukrainians will be at the end of this conflict. They got this!
And as can be evidenced by the US since the cold war. Good times create weak men unfortunately
@@calebbearup4282speak for yourself.
Putin aimed to destroy them, instead he united them. Слава Україніст noxçiiçönan marşo
@@calebbearup4282people who regurgitate this good times bad times BS are sheep
@@calebbearup4282українці нарешті чекають цих гарних часів. Останні 120 років дуже важкі для України, сильні люди повстають, вони завжди, але гарні часи не настають.
Ukraine, Libya & Iraq gave up its nukes... paid a heavy price. Lesson for other nations to never give up a competitive edge over others.
Are you sure Libya and Iraq had some nukes?
None had nukes
They had all the resources to build one along with blue prints but decided to give it all up. Thinking they will be safer . Fools!
Libya and Iraq still exist so giving up pursuing nukes hasn't really hurt them. But you are right regarding Ukraine so it will only make countries want to have nukes.
@@IloveJinnah slaves of who? Have you been to Libya and Iraq?
Chornobyl, not Chernobyl. Please support Ukraine by using Ukrainian names for Ukrainian cities. It's about time to finally ditch the russian version
+
As William Spaniel said in one of his videos: “post-Soviet Ukraine was no more a nuclear power then as Montana is a nuclear power today”; the nuclear codes are in Washington DC (& Moscow), not in Helena (or Kyiv).
Something something something, deserves neither, and will lose both
Either should all countries be able to have them, or no one should
It was a huge mistake, Putler would never dare to attack Ukraine if that had just a fraction of that nuke arsenal, for he is a coward shaking in his bunker every time something happens and his safety might be compromised in any way.
I honestly think that giving up the weapons was probably a good idea not only economically speaking, but let’s just face it. Russia was always going to find a reason to fight and conquer Ukraine, especially if the nationalist were in power which they are. They would’ve used nuclear weapons, that were basically irrelevant due to maintenance issues, etc. as a reason to invade it might have even happened sooner
When this video came out, I thanked the group for making this as not enough is said about this…but now, I find the summery of the Budapest Memorandum, to be a little weak.
Any “marginal” amount of nuclear weapons that could be brought to the Russian onslaught, would’ve stopped Putin in his tracks. Yes, there are a million other universes worth of potential possibilities of what could’ve or would’ve happened, but the fact is, the US and Britain were complicit with Russia in Neutering Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. And it is understandable as to the general motives on all parties, but, if Ukraine refused to give up their nukes, there’s nothing anyone could do. If Ukraine had even a “marginal” amount of nuclear weapons at best, that’s still enough to take out portions of Russia.
To date, Russia has never attacked another nuclear weapon state, or one within the borders of a nuclear umbrella.
And yet, here is Ukraine, suffering the worst war since WW2 and suffering the brunt of an onslaught that together, all of Nato was designed to deter. And all of this could’ve been avoided by letting them have at least a small amount of nuclear weapons. Case and Point; the U.K.
300 nukes, and we still have to pretend that this little island has any real say in world affairs. Then compare them to Canada. A nation, geographically dwarfing the UK and a population 2/3rds and no one listens to a thing we say.
The UK and America helped make this mess and I don’t care how pedantic one wants to get about the vagueness of the language of the Budapest memo. agreement. You and your teams created this problem and it is up to you guys to give Ukraine everything they need to stop it.
The UK and America did not help make this mess. Ukraine did not want nuclear weapons. They used them to try and negotiate a security guarantee but had no real desire or could afford to keep them. Also since Ukraine did have said nuclear arsenal, they did not and were not under any obligation to give them up. They chose to do that. Also, most post soviet eastern European nation joined NATO while Ukraine still wanted a relationship with Russia so decided to put their trust in Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine on their own due to paranoia.
American president have blood on their hands
In the end it was russia who started this war and should bear the responsability for people dying in it.
But Germanys gas dependency and Ostpolitik deserves much criticism too. So does France weak military help to Ukraine and Macron treasonous statements. And USAs defence guarantees have been of very little value. And if the MAGA republicans halt all support to Ukraine no one will ever take a security guarantee from the USA seriously again.