There were never ukrainian nuclear weapons. There were soviet nuclear weapons stationed in ukraine which russia took as successor state responsible for not only weapons but all soviet debt too.
Ever hear about Gonzalo Lira?
Yeah , i've heard of him, and ? Fairly unsavoury character, online media +"dating coach", conspiracy theory proponents, arrested in kharkiv for spreading pro - russian propaganda, given bail , tried to flee the country, ( while blogging about it ) , detained , imprisoned, died in prison of pneumonia..
Is that the debt they defaulted on in 1998?
most ridiculous statement. When SU collapsed, ruSSia jumped on assets as successor. When nations started to demand responsibility and repatriations for all the war crimes and unlawful annexations, ruSSia was like - "why you ask us?! nothing to do with us, it was SU". Same with debt - "ah, you see, it has nothing to do with us, it was SU debt". And then the default in 1998. Mafia is mafia does.
Surely the EU will save us !!!!!! we voted for it in the Lisbon treaty.
Queue Mick Wallace and Claire Daly arguing in Brussels against Ireland resisting armed occupation.
Tank production in Russia
It’s no secret that zelensky and zaluzhny have been at loggerheads for months now.
That’s theft and it’s illegal. It’s a lot different to freezing assets. Doing so would open up a can of worms that you haven’t even bothered to think about. Like foreign governments pulling all their assets from western banks because they can’t be trusted to act in good faith. Trust is everything in the financial markets no matter what is happening on the ground.
Also, Ukraine didn’t have nukes for Russia to take. The were the property of the USSR, deployed on Ukrainian soil. Your assertion is akin to saying that Britain “took” Irish Royal Navy warships after 1921.
It's not theft and could be legal..
'Congress has seized foreign government property during peacetime in the past. But to my knowledge, it has done so on only two occasions. The first occurred in 1958, when Congress—with the support of the Eisenhower administration—enacted a law directing the president to seize the proceeds of certain steel mill equipment that had been frozen by U.S. sanctions while en route to the Czechoslovakian government and distribute the proceeds among American claimants whose property had been expropriated following Czechoslovakia’s turn to communism. Later, in 2000, Congress similarly directed the president—over the Clinton administration’s objections—to seize certain frozen Cuban assets to pay compensatory damages to certain American plaintiffs who held U.S. judgments against Cuba for the expropriation of their property after the Cuban revolution. Neither appears to have been the subject of a legal challenge, explaining the lack of relevant case law.'
The nukes weren't Russian either by your logic and why did they sign an agreement in return?
12 posts. Every one of them fundamentally wrong.
What do you think the "Irish Royal Navy" was?
You’re playing very fast and loose with your interpretation of Criminal Asset Forfeiture. It has to be proven that the assets to be seized are proceeds of criminal conduct in front of a court. Now you may think that Western governments are squeaky clean and they can point the finger at others for malfeasance. If you want to go down that route then roll the dice and take your chances. Western governments and financial institutions could end up face a raft of suits for the theft of Iraqi and Syrian oil, for simply robbing Venezuela’s gold reserves, for robbing Diego Garcia. You see you can’t have it both ways. And it IS illegal.
Meanwhile, back on the civilian aircraft scene....in co-operation with embargoes don't work!!
Maybe if you took a moment to think about it. Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil were no more “Ukrainian” than Royal Navy warships stationed in Ireland were “Irish”. Is it that difficult?
Mate, you claimed that the British don't control their own nuclear deterrent. "Take a moment" to think about that.
Exactly. They were Soviet, not Russian.
Exactly, the key word here is "Soviet"; precisely what mechanism of Soviet authority existed when Ukraine gained independence? And if that's the logic then why stop at nuclear weapons?
What was definately illegal was the invasion of Ukraine. I'm sure we alll can agree on that at least?
This isn't a good sign conserving air defence ammunition
This article covers Putin's foreign assets seizure and legalkity pretty well..
Anyway didn't they already seize foreign aircraft illegally? Some neck now crying foul and looking to international law!
I’ll admit that I got the names wrong….Polaris instead of Trident. Having said that, the UK don’t own their missiles. They lease them from the US. The subs need to go to the US for maintenance since most of the components and technology is provided by Washington. The UK can only test their systems under US supervision in Florida and UK nuclear facilities are partly under the control of Lockheed Martin. Now if you think that constitutes an “independent” program I have an inflatable dartboard to sell you.
That's not what you implied, and you know it. Who has the codes to fire them?
Well one could ask the question about USSR nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan or Belarus. Were the US warheads in Turkey or the Pershing 11’s at Greenham Common the property of the Uk or Turkey? If you want to get petty about missiles in Ukraine being “Soviet” but not “Russian” they knock yourself out.
The biggest with assets seizures in Europe going forward it then becomes a highly political weapon to guarantee various outcomes with countries making claims against another,
Yes the Americans did it against Cuba and Saddam to a degree but at the same time the US wouldn't allow anyone to seize there assets think of the invasion of Iraq,the same applies to trying to remove Hungary from EU votes it's open to abuse to guarantee predetermined political outcomes
Not sure we can reference Belarus while ignoring the reality of it being a Russian puppet state. And it's nothing to do with pettiness, it's just you're trying to argue Ukraine's nuclear weapons were Russia's and they were in their right to demand them back. It is pertinent to speak about what Russia classifies as its own property given this war is being prosecuted precisely because of one man's belief Ukraine is exactly that, a border mistake to be corrected.
In any case, the subject is extremely hypothetical as AFAIK Ukraine weren't able to bypass the codes and systems locking them out, so their destruction was as much pragmatic as it was a question of "ownership".
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
