Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.
Yep.
The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.
Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.
Nuclear programs need a lot more leadtime than that, that’s why if Biden had balls he’d give them some of ours before it’s too late
There’s really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It’s one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment’s notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.
I think that’s enough internet for today
It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won’t end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).
So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.
The reluctance to authorize long range missile strikes into Russia is based on the fear of nuclear strikes on the US/authorizers. The war was always meant to keep oil prices high and trickle through weapon sales until the last Ukrainian.
Fuck yeah, and I hope they’ve been doing it in secret for a while now.
Idk how easy it easy to just build a nuke… I feel like the long range missile is the hard part, right? The actual nuclear part isn’t quite so complex. Maybe I’m wrong.
He said they could make a bomb in a couple weeks if needed. No specifics on delivery or quality.
Edit: sounds like kyiv is denying the claim made by some insider. So guess this isn’t likely true.
They have a lot of the Soviet weapons design bureaus. Not sure how many of the original designers are still around. The tricky bit will be refining enough uranium or plutonium in a war zone.
wow Putin’s bitch stopping aid to Ukraine? never could’ve seen this coming.
no kidding though, it took a while but Russia finally did it. they are the superpower now. good news, Europe!
Sadly, they don’t have enough time to build a defense. Trump is going to put them out for slaughter.
Numerous other entities are at high risk in the immediate future, eg: Palestinians, Taiwan, Japanese islands… etc.
Trump and Repugnants are not just the end of the U.S., but, also the World as we know it.
I wish y’all the best and I apologize for the ensuing insanity.
You’re absolutely correct and I hate it. Good luck with the horrors ahead.
If they get used it is obviously really going to be a bad time for all but one thing in their favour is that the prevailing wind goes from west to east.
Obviously, yes. That’s the only guarantee that nations have not to be fucked with.
Ukraine needs to go away. They’re just as corrupt, if not more so, than Russia. The last thing they need is a nuke.
Piss off.
I don’t think it would serve any purpose unless they plan to use it, in which case no they should not. They’re going to have enough on their hands just keeping the orcs at bay until somebody takes out Putin.
To me this is the same philosophy adopted by Israel when they kill Hamas leaders. This isn’t chess, folks. Killing the king does not end the game.
Name one time since Hitler that the death of a world leader has resulted in the end of an armed international conflict.
There’s no reason to exclude Hitler. Also no reason to declare that taking out Putin will have no effect on Russia’s course. It certainly has more chance than leaving him in place. And even if it changes nothing, no loss - terrorist leaders deserve to be killed on principle alone.
OK now do Iran
No Islamic country should ever have WMDs.
Least islamaphobic liberal.
I don’t think they have much of a choice at this point. And yes, I’d support it. They clearly should’ve never agreed to the Budapest Memorandum with its half hearted security guarantees.
The irony is that Ukraine had “the bomb”, but the US and its allies promised to protect them if they gave it up. Oops.
Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?
Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn’t happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else’s breach.
"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.
In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.
In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.
For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance
:::
Thanks for adding another source with some more context
No protection, just non-agression. That was violated by russia.
That’s my understanding. Furthermore, they had the nuclear weapons of the soviet union. Even if they could maintain them at the time, without much of the infrastructure that the soviet Union had, I think legally they were Moscow’s. Moscow held the metaphorical button, if not the physical one. Similar to US nuclear weapons in Germany aren’t controlled by Berlin.
That being said, I think this whole war has lead to a situation where nuclear armament is very appealing, not just to Kyiv but to many of the similar states looking on. It is again, for world peace we need less nukes in the world, for Ukraine’s sovereign safety, they need (more) nukes.
From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords
(1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states
That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn’t actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.
And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should’ve included something akin to Article 5
The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.
I think you can’t give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they’d only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn’t give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.
For Russia that would have never been acceptable.
Russia would have never signed on to that. Their whole argument about Ukraine is the constant advancement of NATO territories towards its border.
Yeah… and Ukraine clearly shouldn’t have signed without it
That’s the lesson here… They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.
Zero benefit to the people
The US and Russia. Ya know, the Russia that’s murdering, raping, and torturing Ukrainians and claiming they shouldn’t exist like genocide
It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.
This is like saying that Germany has the right to keep the American nukes stationed on its soil if the US was to ever leaver Germany.
The soviet bombs were built, operated and guarded by a Russian department of the Russian Republic member of the Soviet union. what Ukraine signed on was a smooth repatriation of those nukes back to Russian. there is no real way Ukraine could have confiscated them even if they tried.
Giving up nukes, and remaining neutral, is also the conditions for their liberation granted by USSR/Russia. Germany asking US to end its occupation is going to need the US to be allowed to take their weapons for them to agree peacefully.
YES
The US and Russia promised to defend Ukraine if it surrendered its nukes. Russia is currently destroying Ukraine, and trump will let them so it’s time since that agreement was now worthless
I think nuclear deterant is the only thing that has a chance of working for countries that aren’t military super powers, and even military super powers have them for a reason. And a country having to rely on benevolence of other countries leaves too many things to chance for nations that wish to be sovereign.
Are you implying that russia is a military super power? Their performance in ukraine has shown they are a paper tiger with a few nukes up their sleeve from back when the soviet union was actually a major player.
Compared to Ukraine yes, and they have a lot more people to throw at the meat wave
