If I recall correctly, the reason Ukraine got rid of their previous nukes was an agreement with Russia. Essentially remove your nukes or face annexation by Russia... And yet here we are, unsurprisingly to be honest.
It was a bit different than you say but not too far off: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In a nutshell, among several more countries Russia and Ukraine signed this agreement, Ukraine and other countries pledged to get rid of sovjet nukes, in return Russia and other countries pledged to not excert force against the countries that signed, except for self defense. And well, we know now how that went.
There were nukes in Ukraine. This is not the same as Ukraine having nukes. They couldn't control, and worse, couldn't maintain the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union left behind.
couldn't maintain the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union left behind.
Not sure Russia has either. They certainly haven't maintained the rest of the Societ military infrastructure that was left in Russia.
Right. Not something we knew 30 years ago, though.
This has been the implied cause of action for a while. The fact that they had to spell it out explicitly is is cos the american public are to dumb to understand this has always been the implied alternative to proper support from allies.
That may also explain why capturing nuclear power plants is so strategic in this war.
Not really ukraine already has sufficient nuclear material expertise and equipment to build a plutonium based nuke. The power plants are mostly irrelevant except for dirty bomb type destruction. Its the nuclear waste reprocessing that is almost identical to the processes of refining a critical mass of plutonium. Stick that in a tube with 2 regular bombs and boom u got a nuke. Refining the plutonium is the hard part and ukraine has got that covered. Once u got the plutonium u can probably build a nuke in cave with a box of scraps.
Horrible, TBH.
But I once got into an argument with a tankie here, and eventually the analogy was made of the U.S. invading a border country to secure itself, of course. AKA, Mexico.
And I was like... It doesn't matter what Mexico says or does. They could become a territory of Russia or China and send middle fingers on balloons for all I care, they aren't an existential threat. I would be utterly ashamed of my country if we invaded them, especially after just invading Cuba (aka Georgia) over a similar pretense. And I sure as heck would want to give Mexico nukes and let them join CSTO if it would make the US stop invading them.
I don't think potentially arming narcos with nukes is a good idea.
Man if only they had those nukes like 30 years ago after the USSR collapsed.
It would have been a MAD trump card, or could at least be used as a deterent.
I wonder what the nuclear powers would have done to convince Ukraine to ever get rid of such nukes.
I bet the USA would have invited them to NATO. Russia would probably make an exclusive oil deal.
Imagine the possibilities.
[fart_reverb.mp3]
I believe the us promised to protect ukraine if they gave up their nukes. But a promise from a president only lasts as long as the president it doesnt have any enforcement behind it like nato does. It was the same type of promise given to the ussr that they wouldnt let ukraine join nato. There is a certain irony to that hey? Putin blames the us for breaking its nato expansion promise which was the same type of promise they gave ukraine to give up their nukes. Iirc.
Nato expansion promise? Where did you get that from and who joined NATO before 2014 that "made" russia attack Ukraine?
It's just bullshit kremlin talk.
During the negotiations over the reunification of Germany in 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker made a verbal promise to Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia accepted the reunification of Germany.
The promise was made the debate is over its enforceability. Of course this promise meant nothing same as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances also meant nothing.
So basicly putin is a hypocritical bastard by claiming the whole nato wont expand thing was a broken promise while simultaneously breaking the Budapest Memorandum.
EDIT: found the source.
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution