Russia - General Discussion.

[personaldesas]

Would it not be convenient for Ukraine to acquire them

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

and how difficult can it be for them to acquire the production capability to produce them domestically, as they have in the past?

The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

 

[Feanor]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

 

[John Fedup]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.



The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

True and it made sense then assuming Russia would morph into the state the West hoped for. Putin ended that fantasy.

 

[Feanor]

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

 

[KipPotapych]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine has been in ever since the Soviet collapse. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

I’d put it this way myself.

 

[John Fedup]

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

 

[Feanor]

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

Good question. I guess if the Ukrainian state was hell bent on hanging on to a few they probably could have secreted them away. The problem is Ukraine went through a series of presidents with different views and different affiliations. Ukraine has a lot of Russian intelligence active there too and has had since independence. I suspect Russia would know, possibly western partners too. I'm just not sure what good they would have done in '14, or now. A handful of tactical nukes isn't enough to defeat Russia, but might be enough to get Russia to respond in kind but x 10. And what could they reliably hit? Ukrainian UAVs get through Russian air defenses in general. But the odds of any particular inbound are low. Russia shoots down most of them, sometimes all of them. So you'd have to scatter the nukes among a large wave of inbounds and hope something gets through, and then what?

 

[Ikimieli]

Is not the whole purpose of acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction while being Russias neighbor to act as a Deterrence ?

To make the use more costly for Russia rather than "If they launch Nuclear Weapons to Russia we will respond 10x". The only one who might seriously considers using them seems to be Russia, and all the rest seem to want them as response for that.

Also, Russian stance to whole thing is very aggressive. They do not build defence, they only build more capabilities to attack and emphasis on "mutual destruction" type of scenarios, and even on those, they do not make shelters or precautions for their people as other countries do.

The whole idea seems to be, that no one would dare, we are the only ones who threaten with it, and would it come to that, we have not used resources to defend, because we only attack. And then when someone tries to defend they turn it so that it is a supposed aggression against them which somehow justifies their own aggression now. So you cannot defend, you need only to surrender. And if you defend, it is aggression which justifies the attack. Something like this ?

For example, if you compare with US, they build defence like crazy, and its one of their most important focus points.

Soviet and US had some kind of agreement in the past, cold war era, that each can have only was it one or two anti ICBM systems to ensure mutual destruction only protecting the capital area and was it one military site. US broke the agreement and started to build more, and have now the Aegis and SM-3 systems. Soviet, and Russia never built more and the ones near Moscow is probably more than 50 years old and they only build attack capabilities, which are very fearsome, but they do not build defense ?

Is it like this ?

The idea on US on this kind of setup seems to be, that if someone launch against them, they will shoot them down and respond.

Russia idea seems to be, that if someone shoots they dont shoot them down and respond 10x.

Or, if someone even say that they acquire this capability they take it as aggression, and somehow turn it that now they are being attacked, and they are the ones who need to respond ? (Even no one would want them or think they need them, if Russia would not threaten them making direct and official threats with such).

So basically, every single neighbor Russia have, they all should acquire them to act as deterrence ?

You can never know. Putin seems very reasonable on comparison, but everyone knows that Medvedev is crazy. The moment he gains more influence you can never know what will happen. People have been accustomed to Putin, but once the power changes, what then ?

As far as i understand. For example in Finlands point of view. Finnish President at that time (Sauli Niinistö) asked him directly in 2022 do we have military threat from Russia against Finland. He gave direct answer that no. But then someone else comes, what then ?

And as a strange side note, he used some time in that same call to read poems to Putin. Does that act as a deterrence ?

And then afterwards, he went to Ukraine and said openly on press conference with Zelenskyi that "lets keep the eyes on the ball". Which clearly perplexed Zelenskyi by no small amount.

Also. Russia was informed more than half year before Finland joined NATO that Finland and Sweden is planning to do so, and they did nothing to stop that. They could have, but they did not.

And even they would only attack with conventional means, they do use Nuclear Threat as a leverage to pressure the opponent. And if you lack this capability, the pressure is felt more. You need this, even you do not plan to use it. It is a psychological factor.

The reasoning for Ukraine to have them, is psychological. That they would know that they could respond. The reason is not to attack Russia, but to make their leverage not as strong.

It affects behaviour, when they threaten and you do not have it yourself.

Shooting them down with things like S-400 or S-500 might not help. They will explode and the fallout will spread on your own area, carried by the wind. You need to be able to shoot them in space. And even that i suppose, have some kind of effect on the international satellite network.

I do not know, but it seems that Russian people have lack of respect on Ukrainian people or something like this. And then Ukrainians need to win that respect on the battlefield to be taken seriously. Having that Nuclear Deterrence would help in that too ? So that Russians would start to take them seriously ?

So yes, i think they should definetely acquire them. And everyone else should too.

 

[John Fedup]

So yes, i think they should definetely acquire them. And everyone else should too.

The problem with "everyone" is some of them think 72 virgins are waiting for them when they blow themselves and all those around them to hell, hence no deterrent value against such feeble-minded fools.

 

[Ikimieli]

No, their leadership is not the ones doing that. They are the ones telling them.

The one you need to deter is their governace.

 

[Feanor]

Is not the whole purpose of acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction while being Russias neighbor to act as a Deterrence ?

It's generally the purpose of all states. WMDs are largely seen as deterrence, especially when we're talking about strategic weapons, as opposed to tactical ones. The US nuclear arsenal is also about deterrence, as is the Russian one

To make the use more costly for Russia rather than "If they launch Nuclear Weapons to Russia we will respond 10x". The only one who might seriously considers using them seems to be Russia, and all the rest seem to want them as response for that.

Also, Russian stance to whole thing is very aggressive. They do not build defence, they only build more capabilities to attack and emphasis on "mutual destruction" type of scenarios, and even on those, they do not make shelters or precautions for their people as other countries do.

What a strange argument. The same weapon systems are used defensively and offensively. And defense isn't just about passively sitting there. But even if we want to look at the defensive side, Russia has a large and generally fairly robust civil defense infrastructure, a ground-based centric IADS that's probably the most robust in the world (and that's as close as you get to a purely "defensive" build-out), and generally has very limited force projection capability. Russia's political stance is aggressive, but I don't think we can argue that Russia's military development is exclusively about aggression.

The whole idea seems to be, that no one would dare, we are the only ones who threaten with it, and would it come to that, we have not used resources to defend, because we only attack. And then when someone tries to defend they turn it so that it is a supposed aggression against them which somehow justifies their own aggression now. So you cannot defend, you need only to surrender. And if you defend, it is aggression which justifies the attack. Something like this ?

For example, if you compare with US, they build defence like crazy, and its one of their most important focus points.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Soviet and US had some kind of agreement in the past, cold war era, that each can have only was it one or two anti ICBM systems to ensure mutual destruction only protecting the capital area and was it one military site. US broke the agreement and started to build more, and have now the Aegis and SM-3 systems. Soviet, and Russia never built more and the ones near Moscow is probably more than 50 years old and they only build attack capabilities, which are very fearsome, but they do not build defense ?

The Aegis is a very expensive and high-end system that Russia can't really hope to match any time soon. But it doesn't mean Russia hasn't been working on BMD for the past 20 years. They have been. The A-135 around Moscow went through a major upgrade and overhaul, and the S-500 is now in service, presumably as some sort of analogue to the THAAD.

The idea on US on this kind of setup seems to be, that if someone launch against them, they will shoot them down and respond.

Russia idea seems to be, that if someone shoots they dont shoot them down and respond 10x.

I think it's a question of resources not priorities.

Or, if someone even say that they acquire this capability they take it as aggression, and somehow turn it that now they are being attacked, and they are the ones who need to respond ? (Even no one would want them or think they need them, if Russia would not threaten them making direct and official threats with such).

So basically, every single neighbor Russia have, they all should acquire them to act as deterrence ?

Many have pointed out that the difference between the DPRK and Iran is that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. So it's not just Russia's neighbors.

You can never know. Putin seems very reasonable on comparison, but everyone knows that Medvedev is crazy.

Is Medvedev crazy? Or is he playing a role? Back when he was president, he was seen as the conciliator, the pro-Western liberal. Isn't it interesting how after Zhirinovsky dies, someone else without any seeming real power, but in a high position within the political apparatus appears and starts making crazy and nationalistic statements? All that's missing is the alcoholism, and the penchant of populism. But the first is a personal choice, and the second is likely unnecessary since Medvedev isn't running an "opposition" party.

And even they would only attack with conventional means, they do use Nuclear Threat as a leverage to pressure the opponent. And if you lack this capability, the pressure is felt more. You need this, even you do not plan to use it. It is a psychological factor.

The reasoning for Ukraine to have them, is psychological. That they would know that they could respond. The reason is not to attack Russia, but to make their leverage not as strong.

It affects behaviour, when they threaten and you do not have it yourself.

So it is defensive to have nuclear weapons? Why doesn't Ukraine just develop Aegis and shoot down Russian nukes?

Shooting them down with things like S-400 or S-500 might not help. They will explode and the fallout will spread on your own area, carried by the wind. You need to be able to shoot them in space. And even that i suppose, have some kind of effect on the international satellite network.

You need to brush up on the 101 of nuclear weapons. There's tactical nukes and strategic weapons. There are different types of delivery platforms. I believe I discussed above what kinds of nuclear weapons are credible for Ukraine, with their resources, to be able to hold on to given recent history.

On a side note the fallout from actual nuclear weapons isn't as great, and if the weapons are tactical and few in number, it's a concern, but it's not apocalyptic by any means. Some mildly elevated radiation levels in the woods around Bryansk aren't good, but is it enough to get Russia to back off?