Putin has repeatedly threatened to use them in ground combat in Europe, the last 3 years.
He hasn't, but he has them and keep threatening to use them.
Why there's the slightest question that he's the baddie has confused me the whole time.
@gdyson > Ukraine inherited the third-largest nuclear arsenal on planet Earth. Those weapons were decommissioned with bilateral cooperation and the assurance of US support. This was one of the greatest advances in global security in history and only a complete fool would now complain about the cost.
I'm not sure if pre-disarmament Ukraine had any tactical nukes (probably, as Ukraine inherited a fleet of strategic bombers). Ukraine couldn't maintain Soviet-made ICBMS stationed on its territory: while they do have expertise in building motors and control systems (I think?), they had none to maintain nuclear charges. The command and control system wouldn't be usable either, and it's not like Russia was willing to help out either. So, yes, great for humanity, less so for Ukraine. Of course, none of the above justifies the Russian war in Ukraine.
Fun fact: Ukraine maintained Russian R-36 ICBMs until about 2014 (I wonder what happened then? /s), which forced Russia to create a fully domestic version -- RS28, which they are still having issues with.
"Recordatorio histórico: la guerra nuclear en Europa era una amenaza real, reforzada por el despliegue de armas nucleares tácticas en gran número por parte de ambos bandos. Con el colapso de la URSS, Ucrania heredó el tercer arsenal nuclear más grande del planeta Tierra. Esas armas fueron desmanteladas con la cooperación bilateral y la garantía del apoyo de los Estados Unidos. Este fue uno de los mayores avances en materia de seguridad global en la historia y sólo un completo idiota se quejaría ahora del costo. [Gráficos: 1953]"
@gdyson Trump And Putin: A Love Story
The Trump-Russia-Ukraine Timeline
Trump’s connections to Russia began more than 35 years ago and didn’t end on Election Day 2016...