I'd have to agree with Noah Millman on this: "What seems most likely to me is that, if Ukraine had an independent nuclear deterrent, Putin would have intervened much earlier to make sure that Yanukovich remained in power. He certainly wouldn’t risk a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent falling into the hands of an anti-Russian party." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/would-a-nuclear-ukraine-still-hold-crimea/
I can't see Putin being half as provocative over the Crimea and Donetsk if a reasonable nuclear deterrent existed. Then again, I don't think that Russia would have accepted a nuclear Ukraine to begin with. If Ukraine had nukes, Putin may have quashed the Orange Revolution while the West was concerned over the Middle East. However, I think the West would include a nuclear Ukraine in NATO to be able to influence the country to avoid antiRussian radicalism and a nuclear exchange, so who knows what could've happened.
Not to mention the delivery systems. Ukraine's rocket forces have left much to be desired and have had many accidents over the years.nukes are expensive and ukraine is constantly broke.
Not to mention the delivery systems. Ukraine's rocket forces have left much to be desired and have had many accidents over the years.
Which did f*ck all to help the accident-prone Ukrainian rocket force.The Ukrainians inherited the factories that built many of Russia's ballistic missiles.
That's nice. How are they going to be maintained?They also acquired most of the Tu-160 fleet, as well as several 5u-22M and Tu-95 strategic bombers and Su-24 strike aircraft.