Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Lol using wikipedia as a source. Either way, the fact remains that there was no set of events in which Ukraine would have been allowed to have nukes. If Ukraine has said no, either the new government would be replaced or Ukraine would have gotten invaded by US and Russia simultaneously.

It's nice that people say Ukraine and the other countries owned the nukes or whatever and have them sign an agreement to "hand over" something they didn't own, but that's just optics. Reality is Ukraine never could use those nukes and didn't have a military force or access to the nukes to keep them.




Of course Wikipedia, or any other source, wouldn't be enough. By the way, what is your source?

Here's the man himself, Bill Clinton, stating it was not only a possibility for Ukraine to keep their nukes, but also that it was a mistake he regrets making: https://youtu.be/nKoba5GvNsc?si=3T1W6BvrqEqvkpNE

So not only you're spreading propaganda, and lies, without sources to support your claims, you're even doubling down on more fantasy.

The fact is that Ukraine could use those nukes, both the ICBM ones that would require the "magical codes", also the ones deployed by the bombers, they also had the technical know how to further develop their nuclear arsenal, as well as having the fuel to produce more.


If you think Clinton wouldn't spread lies and propaganda while supporting a proxy war against Russia, I don't know what to tell someone as naive as you. Have at least a little bit of critical thinking please. He said this last year!

Ukraine simply did not have the infrastructure, supporting military, or supporting scientists for what you are saying. If they did, they would be a much more developed country right now.


What proxy war? Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting back with some help.

Please exercise some critical thinking. Ukraine had the nukes and physical possession is most of the work. Its not hard to imagine that they could have made them workable again after inhering much of the army, spies and military of the soviet union.

If north Korea can make nukes from scratch Ukraine could have easily made nukes. Of course the economy was collapsing and people were starving in both russia and Ukraine in the 90s. They needed western aid. If they had ignored pressure from Clinton to give up nukes it would have resulted in them becoming an even poorer pariah not unlike NK. But if Clinton had not pressured them. Or more importantly if they knew that Russia would otherwise invade and start the deadliest European war in decades they would have kept the nukes and easily made them serviceable to prevent that.


There it is in full display, full blown fantasy, with zero facts or sources typical Russian propaganda that works only in people with very poor levels of education lmao

We're done here.


You are just bought into the propaganda. It's unfortunate but there is no point to a real discussion with someone as bought in as you.


If they couldn't have kept them, why were they asked?


Such a Russian narrative. Ukraine had all technical means to keep nukes, to service ICBM.

The issue was in budget to do that. Economics was ruined with the collapse of USSR.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: