Talk:Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction

Budapest Memorandum not a Treaty

The final sentence of the introductory paragraph says, "However, there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure". This claim, while almost certainly true, seems fairly vague (ie who disputes the claim) and not immediately verified. Does anyone have a source for it? Okapi296 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A memorandum is not technically a treaty. However it is binding international law. Interestingly the pledge to assist Ukraine in the event of aggression is the same term as in the Entente Cordiale treaties, which led to WW1.101.98.175.68 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed, there is no dispute, the fact that Ukraine was invaded is backed by UN resolution, proposed by Ukraine and voted by 100 countries against 11: [[1]]. (Gena (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC))

The statement in the introduction that "However, there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure" is wrong. International law comprises a number of different binding elements, including customs, treaties and other agreements. The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and does not purport to be one. That does not mean that it is not binding. At law [I am bye-the-way a lawyer], a memorandum entered into between duly authorized national representatives is binding. Notably the agreements which formed the networks which led to WW1 - the Triple Entente amongst others - were all formed by agreements not treaties.101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent past has made it quite clear that the "binding elements" are meaningless, treaty or not, lawyer or not.

Status of weapons 1991 to 1994

There is no reference to the control or maintenance of the weapons from 1991. Who maintained them? Were they under Russian operational control - despite being Ukrainian? When were they dismantled or disposed of. This is an important topic, I would have though that answers would be available somewhere.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Date for the decommissioning of Ukraine's last nuclear weapon missing

When I opened this page I was looking for the date for the decommissioning of Ukraine's last nuclear weapon. As I do not know this I cannot amend the document. It would be helpful to have some more facts on the decommissioning process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.206.117 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

See Also section is all about missiles

I checked the links in the newly added "See also" section. They are all about missiles and space launch vehicles. It's not clear that many of them are relevant to this article, which is about nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons"

This phrase sounds as if it was Ukraine who did actual destruction of their nukes. But in fact Ukraine didn't destroyed the nukes. They passed them to Russia. Then Russia dismantled them. Ukraine agreed to pass the weapons to Russia for dismantling. Alexxzz123 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Despite Russia's claimed annexation of Crimea"

@NPguy: Russia does not claim it "annexed" Crimea, as an article on annexation itself mention. And "annexation" is an accepted label of what happened, both in RS and on this wiki, as you can see. Also, that a text is longstanding, does not by itself show consensus. Or can you point me to a discussion about this bit? Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is an incompatibility between actual control of Crimea by Russia, which treats Crimea as its own territory and the legal status, recognized by other states, which treat Crimea as part of Ukraine. In one sphere the annexation is a real fact. In the other it is a legal fiction. Saying Crimea was annexed illegally accepts one reality but gets the other wrong. To my mind "invalid" better expresses the general view of the legal status. I do see your point that Russia does not use the word "annex" to describe its claim to Crimea. I'm not aware of a discussion of the various possible formulation. The UN's legal office might have issued an opinion. NPguy (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I mean a discussion here, not in the UN. We write encyclopedic articles based on secondary RS, who overwhelmingly (at least in English) refer to this as annexation, not UN's (or any other) primary documents. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I found a bunch of articles that address the political and legal issues. I haven't had time to digest them yet, but maybe they will help find a good formulation. I will note that the first one (by Steve Pifer) refers to "Crimea's illegal annexation," which seems to support your formulation. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] NPguy (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a funny issue. The Russian occupation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula is a de facto annexation, but illegal and unrecognized. UNGA resolutions call it a “temporary occupation” and “attempted annexation.” But the RF also objects to the term, because it maintains the fiction that Crimea became independent and acceded to the RF of its own volition two days later (Russian forces actually installed an illegal government at gunpoint, then claimed it as theirs after some quasi-legal formalities).

I see the term “annexation” as a convenient shortcut, and suitable for the article title if it were found to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, but it is not defining, nor an adequate explanation of the situation. And neither the Russian side nor the rest of the world calls this just “annexation.” —Michael Z. 05:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Second article link mistake, can't edit the page

Hi. It seems the second reference is down, but this link works. As a French user, I don't edit much in the en wiki, so I can't edit it because of the protection. The 29 link is failed as well, it should be this one. It would be cool of someone did the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthirob (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Re-arming

Since Russia seems to have torn up the agreement, is it still binding on Ukraine in international law? Point should be clarified as to whether they can now get nukes or not. 2601:647:5800:7D80:984:967B:34D4:4F22 (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Budapest Memorandum is not a binding agreement. It is a political commitment. And although it was made in connection with Ukraine's accession to the NPT, there no formal legal link between the two. So Yes, Ukraine is still bound by the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine could leave NPT any time, but attempting to re-create the nuclear weapons during the ongoing war would be impossible. Interestingly, it was not only Ukraine. USA also removed their own nuclear weapons from Taiwan and forced it to stop their nuclear weapons program, which makes Taiwan open to the attack by nuclear China. Will USA protect Taiwan? The example with Ukraine is not encouraging. History repeats itself. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

On China's more recent stronger guarantees

It appears that in Dec 2013, China provided Ukraine with a stronger guarantee, at least according to the WSJ, which includes this text: “China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”.

This could be particularly relevant given the current RU/UA war, and the mumblings about RU possibly using tactical nukes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why the move?

The justification for the move was for consistency with other articles. Other articles may be about many kinds of WMD, but this article is only about nuclear weapons. I think the name should be switched back, but I thought it best to discuss before reverting. NPguy (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical first?

Is Ukraine the first nation in human history to freely renounce the use of nuclear weapons?

~~Macadavy Macadavy (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

South Africa, I think.

And Belarus and Kazakhstan got rid of nuclear weapons along with Ukraine. Depending on what milestone you go by, Ukraine may have been the last, because its arsenal was larger and there were more complicated talks about security guarantees. Since they were violated, maybe to be the last in human history. —Michael Z. 14:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As you phrased the question, the answer is no. If you mean the first state that once had nuclear weapons to eliminate those weapons, the answer is still no both because South Africa did so first and because it's not clear that Ukraine ever really possessed the nuclear weapons that were on its territory. NPguy (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course it’s clear Ukraine possessed them.

It didn’t have direct access to the launch procedures by mutual agreement of the CIS. Sources say given time Ukraine could have gained operational control (seeing as it designed and built some of the control systems and the rockets), repurposed the warheads, or simply taken their nuclear materials.  —Michael Z. 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Of course it's clear" isn't an argument. The word "possess" is a bit ambiguous, but presumably entails some combination of ownership and control. It's not clear that Ukraine controlled or owned the weapons that were on its territory. The argument seems to be that Ukraine could have taken control of those weapons. Whether or not that is true, it amounts to saying Ukraine could have taken possession, not that it actually possessed thenm. NPguy (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon its independent statehood Ukraine legally possessed everything on its territory according to uti possidetis juris, subject to negotiation. It’s clear Ukraine possessed them because the CIS including Ukraine agreed to jointly control them through the technical mechanism in Russia. It’s clear Ukraine possessed them because other states negotiated for Ukraine to give them up, which it did a few years later, gave it guarantees contingent on this in the Budapest Memorandum, and considered it a party to the START I treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Ukraine, not Russia, gave up Ukraine’s nuclear weapons.  —Michael Z. 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Possession is not entirely a legal concept. It also involves control. Ukraine did not control the nuclear weapons on its territory. It could threaten to take control, which gave it some leverage to negotiate terms under which it would give up any claim to those weapons. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The was no “claim.” No one else was said to own or possess them. Ukraine owned these systems that were in Ukraine. Then it gave them up, destroyed the delivery systems, and sent the warheads to Russia to be dismantled.  —Michael Z. 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

North Korean claims of Rearmament?

NK recently accused Ukraine of nuclear arms ambition. Is this worth including in the article, or would that constitute WP:UNDUE? 192.77.12.11 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not North Korea but Kim’s sister made a comment.[8] It’s based on a petition on a government website where any Ukrainian citizen can start a petition. It had 600 signatures of the 25k (2%) required to get a response from the government. Seems like a nothingburger at this point. Compared, for example, to repeated Russian nuclear threats during the invasion which aren’t even mentioned.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Issue in this section

"Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] "

This section has issues with phrasing not declaring where the ICBMs came from, and the source link is bad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.83.106 (talk • contribs)

The first sentence of the paragraph says where they came from. Source link works fine for me (link is the number, not the name JSTOR). —Michael Z. 03:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)