Talk:Lisbon Protocol

Military history: Technology / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Surrendered to Russia or Destroyed?

"all nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union on the soil of those four states would be destroyed or transferred to the control of Russia" is a bit vague. As far as the protocol itself (and not the actual end result) is concerned was this a straight either/or - i.e. do one or the other with which being unstated (in the protocol)? Or were there conditions and details beyond this?

What actually happened in the end? From the rest of the article is sounds like all the weapons were eventually handed back to Russia - and presumably re-integrated into the Russian arsenal. But this isn't stated unambiguously: just that they were 'transfered' to Russia. Were any of the weapons decommissioned in the end?

On the other hand, the Ukraine article seems to suggest that the Ukrainian weapons were decommissioned: "Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol in which the country agreed to give up all nuclear weapons to Russia for disposal and to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. Ukraine ratified the treaty in 1994, and by 1996 the country became free of nuclear weapons."

Can anyone add any detail on what weapons (types, numbers) were decommissioned in-situ; transferred to Russia and decommissioned; or transferred to Russian to become part of Russian's arsenal? Were the details negotiated in each case? If so, bilaterally, or more widely? Did the result match what was agreed? (For example, did Russia re-integrated any weapons that it had agreed to destroy?)

Or, alternatively, is this covered somewhere else on WP? Could it be linked? 86.168.248.239 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine article suggests that Ukraine decommissioned their weapons (or perhaps, handed them to Russia to be decommissioned). 86.168.248.239 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for choosing Lisbon?

Why was the city of Lisbon chosen for the signing of the agreement? Should this information be briefly addressed in the article? 198.60.121.1 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]