How was the soviet military divided up between successor states?

How was the soviet military divided up between successor states? Was it a "keep whatever is on your territory" thing or was there a system to it? Why did only Russia and Ukraine (briefly) get to keep the nukes?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why was the US so afraid of Ukraine having nukes anyways when they were fine with Russia keeping their massive stockpiles?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US' biggest fear in the 90s was for NK, Iran, Libya, etc to buy nukes from a post Soviet Republic. It wasn't realistic for the USSRs stockpile to disappear, but it was realistic for the stockpile to be centralised and controlled/monitored.

      https://i.imgur.com/59iP8ur.png

      How was the soviet military divided up between successor states? Was it a "keep whatever is on your territory" thing or was there a system to it? Why did only Russia and Ukraine (briefly) get to keep the nukes?

      Kazakhstan had possession of strategic nukes as well. As for your question, it was mostly divided up by what was on each countries territories, though there are some exceptions.
      Kuznetsov was basically highjacked incomplete by the Russians in 1991, along with most of the Su-33s by Timur Apakidze, the Black Sea Fleet wasn't properly divided up until 1997 either, Transnistria obviously, the 201st MRD in Tajikistan remained under control of Russia, as did most of the 127th in Armenia. And the last of the old Soviet Groups in Eastern Europe didn't full withdraw until 1994, almost entirely to Russia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine having a fleet would be interesting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Most of the ships they controlled by 1997 have been scrapped anyway. Of the 6 Krivaks and 8 Grishas they had only Hetman Sahaidachny and three Grishas remained by 2014.
          Then there's Varyag which was sold to China and Ukraina which is still incomplete.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whatever happens post war they should probably invest in some ships. Can't let turkroaches/bongs do all the work

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Zaliv has gotten plenty of work since the Russian takeover, Okean will probably get a good order for LNG tankers in a couple of years under the same scheme.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You forget that up until the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine, Ukraine was the most corrupt former Soviet Republic in all of Europe, hell, even counting all the former Central Asian Soviet Republics. The Ukrainians were the go to country when you wanted to smuggle weapons to some 4th world shithole in Africa, Latin America or Asia, undergoing a Civil War. It stands to reason that if the Ukrainians were allowed to keep their nukes, that they would've sold them to Islamic terrorists already.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      US was afraid of Russian nukes, too. To this end, the US funded a lot of Russian nuclear activities, including nuke decommissioning. The point was to reduce the total amount of nukes, total amount of nuclear armed nations, keep nuclear scientists employed in something or other so they don't go rogue or sell secrets, and to keep good tabs on what was going on in the region concerning nuclear activities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Were the nukes in Ukraine actually controlled by Ukraine? I had heard that the launch controls/codes were in Russia and they were being guarded by Russian soldiers and not Ukrainian. I don't know if there was a way for them to be used, but I may be moronic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Were the nukes in Ukraine actually controlled by Ukraine?
        I think they physically had a few (maybe a couple dozen), but they couldn't break into the control systems. They did have the capability to eventual reverse engineer them (probably by the late 1990s), even then Soviet pits only last for 10-15 years before expiring.
        Also consider the main Russian attack vectors in early 2022, Chernobyl, Energodar, Yuzhnoukrainsk...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They were held by Ukraine but the whole command and control structure was in Russia. Russia doesn't talk about their nuclear policy much, but it would require the permissive action links by replace with Ukrainian equivalents at a minimum. Ukraine would have had smart people to handle most problems but not the infrastructure, which would take a lot of money to set up. They could also hire scientists and engineers from other countries in the post-Soviet collapse.

        They weren't a country that had no knowledge of nuclear weapons, they could figure something out if they wanted to waste money and foreign goodwill.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      putting aside the political stability and corruption issues, major powers don't like granting smaller countries too much strategic autonomy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because there was no guarantee that Ukraine wouldn't try to sell them to other powers for the highest bidder or worse get them stolen by some unknown party.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did only Russia and Ukraine (briefly) get to keep the nukes?
    Kazakhstan had about 1,500 of them at one point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine the shitshow if all the schizo central Asian republics got to keep some nukes. Especially Tajikistan which had a civil war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Using a strategic nuke during a civil war in your thumbtack sized country

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because durka durka jihadis are known for rationality or long term planning

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds exactly the kind of dumbass idea that those Turkic inbreds from Central Asia would have.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you moronic? Of course that could happen, but even that isn't the most likely turn of events. The most likely and very serious issue is one side of a civil war trading away nuclear weapons to foreigners.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >imagine the kino

        https://i.imgur.com/wEADKID.jpg

        >Using a strategic nuke during a civil war in your thumbtack sized country

        Anon these were Tajiks during the 90’s, I feel confident in saying they would use them.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you now realise that the star was always there above the hammer and sickle

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >failed state successor states
    >organized crime and spooks keep things in your pocket until the appointed time

    Excessively non-steppe mongol rape baby Ukraine is an anomaly in an otherwise highly cornered not sincerely 'post'-soviet space.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man, now I wonder if nukes are set to detonate as a safety if someone tries to literally hotwire it. I don't know about modern launch sites but the old us ones kept all their codes locked in a safe on-site

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The warheads were supposed to render themselves unusable if there was an attempt to tamper with them but who knows if it actually worked.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When the Russian Baltic Fleet withdrew from Tallinn (Estonia) they properly went over the base and ships they couldn't evacuate. Essentially ripping the copper wiring out of the walls. Then they transferred two good condition corvettes and a handful of support boats to the Lithuanians.
    Estonia had it coming t.b.h.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did only Russia get to keep the nukes?
    Because the last thing rest of the world wanted was 15 literally who states with nukes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every SSR should have been given one nuke and no conventional weapons.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *