AHC/WI: Ukraine retains it's nuclear weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine retained one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.


It included:
  • 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles with six warheads each
  • 46 RT-23 Molodet ICBMs with ten warheads apiece
  • 33 heavy bombers

This arsenal totalled approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give the weapons back to Russia and it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In recognition of this, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, in which the US, UK and Russia effectively promised to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and to not use nuclear arms against Ukraine.


But what would need to happen in order for Ukraine to keep it's nuclear arsenal and what would happen if there was a nuclear weapons state on Russia's border?
 
They'd also have to find a way to bypass the PAL systems, though that is probably doable with enough determination and time.
 
I've always felt that for Ukraine to keep nuclear weapons (which is unlikely in any event) might actually lead to more Russian intervention--Putin sends in troops to save Yanukovych because "we can't allow Ukraine's nukes to fall into the hands of an anti-Russian government."
 
Russia will never allow Ukraine to drift out of it's sphere of influence, and will use any means necessary to keep the country as an ally. This could mean both heavier Russian financial investment into Ukraine as well as election interference to make sure the "correct" candidate is elected.
 
Kiev has to add maintenance of the weapons and delivery systems to its budget. One of the reasons they were ok with giving up the arsenal.
They'd also have to find a way to bypass the PAL systems, though that is probably doable with enough determination and time.
On top of all this, in late 1990s 8 Tu-160s bombers (and maybe other weapons systems) were OTL handed over to Russia in exchange for debt forgiveness on the money Kiev owed to Moscow for Russian gas. So if Ukraine keeps these weapons = even more economic turmoil.
 
ASB. Strategic nuclear weapons were controlled from Moscow, and tactical ones were exported during the live USSR in the autumn of 1991. The United States and Russia were united in their efforts to deprive other Soviet republics of nuclear weapons. The maximum that Ukraine could get in this situation is the better conditions for renouncing nuclear weapons.

Yanukovych
Who is Yanukovich ITTL? PoD where the regime that wants to preserve nuclear weapons is being formed in Ukraine leads to such a flock of butterflies that Yanukovych will remain a business man in Donetsk

"correct" candidate is elected
The "correct" candidate usually quickly realizes that dealing with Russia as president is not the same as a presidential candidate. "Pro-Russian presidential candidate" Kuchma quickly headed west and ended with the US ally in Iraq and the territorial crisis with Russia, despite the fact that opponents of the pro-Western course of Ukraine did everything to quarrel Ukraine with the US. Yanukovych headed for the West until his greed and mistakes led to the fateful decision to turn 180 degrees also. The problem of Russian politics regarding Ukraine is that modern Russian politicians perceive Ukraine more as a colony than a partner
 
Who is Yanukovich ITTL? PoD where the regime that wants to preserve nuclear weapons is being formed in Ukraine leads to such a flock of butterflies that Yanukovych will remain a business man in Donetsk

True enough. I was just using it as an example of what Russia would do at a given point of time (2013-14) if Ukraine had retained nukes, but I agree that the situation that led to Yanukovich becoming president in the first place would probably never have taken place.
 
I'll bet the Ukrainian government regrets like hell giving them up now. They are probably convinced that Russia would never have dared to invade if they had them.
Would Russia have tried harder to meddle? Quite possibly. Would they dare have invaded? Quite possibly not.

You could have the Ukraine demand an agreement with teeth respecting borders, demanding e.g. a NATO guarantee if Russia invaded. If they made that a precondition of giving up the nukes, I doubt anyone would agree to it, and they might keep them that way.

OTl they had an 'agreement' to respect borders, but when Russia invaded, it was shown to be not worth the paper it was printed on.
 
The USA was very much a signatory of those agreements - meaning that they did not want no proliferation, none, as in none at all. The Ukrainians would have needed time to make any threat with those weapons credible; they would have needed to work at making them operational again. Meaning that Russia would have had that time as a window to send paratroopers in and seize the weapons or sabotage them irretrievably. And the USA and the West would have washed their hands of that.
It would be over in less than a year, not without bloodshed; and possibly with local contamination if something does not work perfectly well.
Ukraine would start its record as an independent state with a sizable stain on its reputation as a wannabe nuclear rogue state. It would also start out as seriously unstable.
A precedent would be established that the West wouldn't object to Russia intervening in its bordering former Soviet states, at least not if there was a reason good enough; that might give the Georgians pause down the line.
Russia would also keep interfering in Ukrainian elections and internal politics, but that's no change from OTL.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
On-going current political issue. There is an active thread in Chat regarding Ukraine/Crimea
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top