Ukraine had nuclear weapons stationed in its territory but did it actually control and had the capacity to use them? From what I understood that would have required significant investment which probably was politically and financially infeasible in the early 90s.

This arguments get used again and again but it does not make sense. The hard part of building nuclear bomb is the enrichment process. Ukraine inherited ready to use ICMBs and bombers. What they did not have was the launch codes / devices. This could have been manufactured.

Ukraine had huge arms and aerospace industry. They would have capacity to replace detonator units. See [0][1][3], they designed and built quite a lot of ICBMs. Saying they would not have control over missiles they designed and manufactured does not make sense.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartron

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash

> did it actually control and had the capacity to use them

A major worry at the time was that individuals in Ukraine could sell those weapons and the know how to the highest bidders.

It wasn't an unlikely prospect - China, Pakistan, and India all bought defense IP from individuals in Ukraine during the collapse of the USSR and before post-Soviet states governance were formalized (eg. China and India can now manufacture Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and turbofan jet engines because of IP they bought using questionable methods in Ukraine in the 1990s)

Better to provide any source. You are making many wild accusations on this site since a month ago.

China's Aircraft Carrier program - https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA113755343&sid=googleS...

China's Jet Turbine Program - https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/R...

As well as this co-investigation by the SIPRI and Reuters [0] into Ukrainian defense IP sales to China.

What are the "accusations" of mine that you would call wild? I can give citations for all that are needed. I just sometimes don't on HN because citations take time.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/ukraine-crisis-threatens...

South Africa disarmed their nuclear weapons as well and showed the benefits of that.

Who was going to invade South Africa?

Ukraine proved you should keep them.

There are 2 existential crises that every country risks:

1. The worry of invasion

2. The worry of implosion

South Africa in the 1990s was at a very risk of imploding into civil war. Access to nuclear weapons would have made this risk of implosion even worse.

This was a similar worry most of the world had about Ukraine and Kazakhstan after the USSR collapsed - look at what happened to Tajikistan, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the 1990s. Hell, there was even an attempted coup in Moscow in the 1990s.

The fewer countries that have nuclear weapons, the easier it is to decrease the chances of the next conflict (war or civil war) using nuclear weapons.

But trusting Russia with stewardship of nuclear weapons, all the while knowing its deplorable record with regards to its neighbors? That was a colossal geopolitical mistake, and the consequences were predictable.

And I would posit that the aim of limiting countries with nuclear weapons is simplistic. If a nuclear power decides to terrorize a non-nuclear, but industrially advanced neighbor, the victim is likely to acquire a nuclear capability, one way or another, either now or in the future. It hasn't happened yet with Ukraine, but I believe it is inevitable.

Furthermore, that nuclear capability will come with a (justified) grudge. I would certainly want to vaporize my bully.

The end result is that the probability of nuclear conflict has increased, not decreased.

Why not go onestep further? If Gorbachev distrusted sweet talking by the US and had not given up East Germany and kept the union intact, there would be no Ukraine war today. Possibly, Libya, Iraq, and Syria would be functioning countries as well.

On a more recency note: may be if Ukraine did not kill tens of thousands of ethnic Russians by shelling own towns and villages, did not allow foreign elements to run a coup to overthrow an elected govt, did not ban Russian language, they would be alright now. Just spitballing here.

Can’t downvote but this is pure russian propaganda and pretext for the invasion.

What do you dispute as fiction?

- civilian deaths in Donbas during 2014-2021 from Ukraine military action? - Coup - legislation measures for gross restriction of Russian language usage

Calling data you do not like Russian propaganda is weak.

All of that is fiction.

Diminishing a nation's sovereignty with fiction about "coup", "oppression", and "genocide" is precisely propaganda - from a known propaganda superpower.