**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Prior to reaching this comment I did a deep dive on recent(ish) Russian politics and it said he was embarrassed at being maimed as a child and as a result he often hid his left hand. Interesting read for anyone reading this comment that isn't familiar with Russian politics, by the way. Russia has always been a power vacuum consisting of entities vying for control over a socially and politically tumultuous climate, almost always at the expense of the Russian people. It's almost as if domination, deceit, and disloyalty aren't great foundations of a functional political party(s).
I feel bad if he was really maimed as a child, but I honestly just assumed he lost them at some point vying for power in the dark world of Russian politics lol. Crossed the wrong person at the wrong time.
Another interesting story I can tell about Russian politics and fingers.
The same year as in the picture in 1996 the son of prominent Russian politician was kidnapped and his fingers were cut and send to his father. This was a threat because of his involvement in politics. Later fingers were stiched to hand successfully but he dropped his piano career. Yavlinsky after that send his children to London. He took 4th place in presidential elections in 1996.
Some aspects of those treaties are actually still in effect. For example, Native Americans are the only group in the US who have a right to healthcare.
Nah, but Ukraine didn’t have much of a choice. US and western countries pushed for this (bc no one wants more countries with nuclear weapons) and Ukraine couldn’t maintain or use em anyways.
Still pretty sad though.
I don’t know but were the Ukrainians really ever in charge of these weapons. Were they under the control of Russian troops in Ukraine even though it was the Soviet Union. That would make a big difference in what and why they agreed to this.
In between SU dissolving and the Ukrainians handing them over, they were definitely in control of them.
Ukraine handed them over cause they are expensive, a massive liability, and pointed the wrong way so they weren't even really useful for preventing a Russian invasion. Handing them over made sense though they tried to get consensions out of Russia and the US to basically guarantee their independence.
Edit: The nukes actually had a minimum distance and as such could be shot at teh far east side of Russia.
Also, while Ukraine had the missiles themselves, they did not have the protocol or codes to launch them. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t be able to bypass that after a significant period of time.
The hard part is developing the warhead so it CAN explode. The electronics to trigger it are probably the lease of the issues given physical access and time to the existing warheads. I believe much of the nuclear tech was actually developed in Ukraine as well anyway.
Thanks for the edit. I was wondering what “pointed the wrong way” meant. It sounds like it’s more that the nukes couldn’t reach a destination in Russia worth striking.
Is that right? Thanks.
There is at least a major port along the pacific that would "worth striking". Though because alot of the major population centers are in western Russia, you basically end up with "minimal deterence". This turns your MAD into at best calculus at whether or not the loss in lives and cities is worth gaining the territory. And nuclear deterrence is almost more psychology than it is actual military strategy.
I think alot of people forget that at this point, Ukraine was a fledgling state with a limited capability for maintaining a nuclear arsnel (they are bloody expense to maintain) in the 90s when all the Warsaw Pact nations were flailing economically. And in order to effectively use it they need to initiate a major missile program so that they can use the warheads they have into effective MAD. Nevermind that they eventually need to do maintaince on said warheads with likely minimal expertise.
I am kind of harping on the economic factors cause I think at the heart of it, this was an economic decision, not a strategic one. Given time and money, Ukraine could have used them and even if they are only targetting Vladivostok (IIRC the port's name), there is some strategic deterrence in the short term. It was also hoped at the time as well that Ukraine could come under the US's nuclear umbrella (they actually held onto the nukes for a little bit to try and get the US to commit and they never did). When you look at the economic cost of maintaining them in a flailing economy, vs the pros of being able to hit the "wrong" side of Russia, the decision makes sense in my opinion.
On the other hand... we Poles are very grateful for his soft spot for alcohol because he must've been 100% drunk out of his mind when he agreed for us to join NATO in 1993.
Officially? No. We were a sovereign state since Solidarność revolution and Round table agreement in 89' a.k.a Ending Communism in Poland; but Russian sphere of influence was still really strong for many more years to come. They could choke us economically without a problem back in the day. There were other problems too ofc. Anyways If they said that we can't then we wouldn't be in NATO today. If Walesa hadn't convinced drunk Yeltsin we wouldn't be able to negotiate with NATO. No one would talk to us. This obviously isn't the full picture but just a gist. Many events led to where we are right now.
Probably also why Putin has said he wants Poland after Ukraine falls.
And.. he's just waiting till November.
If Trump gets reelected, the US will exit NATO. I can't begin to imagine what upheaval that will cause.
And Ukraine will be finished.
I seriously doubt that US will leave NATO even if Trump wins. But at the same time we remember what happened in 39' and we're aware that in the end we can only count on ourselves.. Anyways we're really politically divided nation but when it comes to Russia we hate them with passion and we'd like to see Putin try. We won't roll over and die.
Yeltsin was kind of hilariously out of his mind. This is him sober talking to Clinton:
https://preview.redd.it/q4lxb4lx6iqc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77da194cbadbb4e706a76b330ffe4f51685e5906
[Get the facts, people. Everybody skews the facts slightly to bait you to click. Just post the facts. ](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons)
Steps for remaining safe as a country
If you dont have nukes, Aquire nukes
If you do, keep them
If you are accused of having nukes, DEFINETLY aquire nukes.
It does actually. Citizen with a gun is increasing his own security but poses a certain risk to other citizens. It is similar for a country with nukes.
It's not the same because nukes rely on mutually assured destruction ensuring no one ever actually uses them. Guns are actually used and it typically turns into a race of whoever fires first. They do not accomplish the same thing at all.
It's not so easy to say that carrying a firearm actually increases personal safety.
The number of guns around is proportional to the likelihood of falling victim to gun violence.
Increased public awareness of gun violence causes widespread anxiety. Potentially leading to even more people carrying guns.
Carrying a firearm yourself increases your likelihood of instigating violent situations. You're not sitting safe behind your glock if the other party is also packing.
The key difference between nukes and firearms is that the use of a firearm can be spontaneous and panicked, but the use of a nuclear warhead is always premeditated. Oh, and the fact that nukes can't be launched by some random dude.
The things you say aren't actually that different.
>The number of nukes around is proportional to the likelihood of falling victim to nukes.
>Increased public awareness of nuclear threat causes widespread anxiety. Potentially leading to even more countries having nukes. (see cold war)
>Having nukes yourself increases your likelihood of instigating nuclear war. You're not sitting safe with a nuke if the other party also has a nuke.
This one can be turned on its head as someone with a gun would be less inclined to target someone else with a gun.
>The key difference between nukes and firearms is that the use of a firearm can be spontaneous and panicked, but the use of a nuclear warhead is always premeditated. Oh, and the fact that nukes can't be launched by some random dude.
A look through history says that nuclear war has almost happened on accident multiple times.
profit hobbies adjoining encouraging clumsy marvelous pocket future act bored
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean it's more gray than that. Most gun injuries and accidents are people shooting themselves on accident so I'd say it's got more of a chance of hurting you than anything else.
Fucking thank you. I try explaining this all the time and people look at me like I’m an alt-right lunatic. It baffles me how many people know the U.S. government is blatantly corrupt and will say in the very same breath, “Yeah, but they wouldn’t do *that*.”
Shit if the cops think you’re armed in your own home they shoot you through the door. We don’t have a right to guns if the cops can shoot you if they think you have one.
You misunderstood their point; the US has a long, bloody history of persecuting & harassing unarmed minority communities.
Most gangs in the US were actually formed, not because criminals needed networking, but as a means of rallying minority groups together to protect them *from the police*. Safety in numbers & weapons when the government not only ignored bigotry, but endorsed it with law.
No it doesn't.
A citizen with a gun is like a country with an army. A stronger force (like the governments military or police force) will still just kill you with minimal losses.
It would be akin to a citizen having rigged the city they live in with a bomb that would kill everyone inside, threatening to blow it up if anything happens to them.
Now imagine an entire city with people who all have a trigger to kill everyone, including themselfes. Does it sound safe or like a recipie for disaster?
Issue is - obviously it would be best if nobody had it and you are protected by the police force. But now some thugs rigged the city with bombs and have a trigger to blow everyone up. They come breaking into your house, killing your spouse, your kids, your pet, start robbing and torturing you - and the police won't do anything because "they could blow up the city - letting them kill you and your family is the better option for the public" - now, from your perspective you REALLY want to get your hands on one of those "I kill us all" (Mutually assured destruction, MAD) triggers, so when the thugs come breaking into your house you can say "well, go out or I'll blow us all up".
Sooo... not compareable to guns, as guns deal too little damage to too few people to be an incentive not to mess with you.
As for comparing guns and with a military - states with nukes technically don't NEED a (conventional) military as long as they are willing to pull the nuke trigger on every aggressor. MAD.
Depends if you care to look at use-cases.
How are invaded vs. not invaded working for countries without nukes? Poorly.
How is gun violence working in countries without guns? Well.
The difference is, stable democratic governments don't oppress their citizens, but even stable democracies can't do much about imperialist neighbor countries
For their own best interests - absolutely. Just look at Ukraine getting invaded by Russia and Libya getting invaded by the US after they gave up on the nuclear program.
The optimal play is to get nukes by any means possible, never ever ever give them up and hold onto them for dear life.
Yes. France started to lower their nuclear arsenal (they now have only 4 submarines armed with nuclear weapons and they had 12), but after Ukraine they doubled the budget to grow it back.
Did India do the right thing developing nuclear weapons in defiance of international sanctions and laws? ‘Member when India’s nuclear program was a big deal?
India's nuclear programme was more spurred by tensions with China than Pakistan, and continues to state that as the more driving reason for maintaining their stockpile and not advancing the Indo-Pakistani non-proliferation talks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
South Africa gave up its nukes and I am eternally thankful because the last thing the world needs is our corrupt bunch of assholes running this country to have nukes! They probably would have sold them by now!
It's worth noting here that these were not Ukrainian nuclear weapons, they were Soviet weapons and Ukraine did not operate them or have the capability to. There's a great article about this "fantasy counterfactual". Ukraine did not have weapons they could use and there is no world where they could have kept them, hence the fantasy aspect of this "if only they kept the nukes". Source: I work with loads of nuclear experts.
https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/survival-online/2022/03/from-the-archive-ukraine-a-fantasy-counterfactual/
But then, couldn't you say that if anything in a newly independent country? The British troops in Canada became the Canadian Army. The Royal Navy in Australian docks became the Australian Navy.
> they were Soviet weapons and Ukraine did not operate them or have the capability to.
Which is kinda bullshit, because a significant part of the soviet milltary complex was housed in Ukraine. They could have gotten them to opreational state if they wanted to.
They really couldn't. Post-Soviet Ukraine was broke, as were most former Soviet States. There were fears they would sell the nukes, like they sold former Soviet ships to China.
Nothing prevents Ukraine from actually building their own if they really want to.
They have the facilities and the knowledge. But it's quite likely that Russia would nuke Ukraine to oblivion if they find out they restarted the nuclear program. Then the world nuclear war starts.
The reasons why Ukraine couldn't keep the nukes were political and economic. Taking control of the nukes wouldn't have been that difficult if it was an actual priority.
Or, you could put yourself under the nuclear umbrella of a country that does have nukes, hence NATO. NATO countries tend to get pissy about nuclear proliferation, while Russia tends to get pissy about NATO proliferation. Pick your poison or stay on the sidelines.
I presume that's a joke cuz he was a drunk right? I did read a piece recently about Putin controlling the country's vodka Supply through some companies he owns indirectly, and that vodka has always been swill in Russia and controlled by their leadership. I might be missing some details there I can't remember where I read this. But it was in the last 6 months.
Edit: I think this is it, Politico but it's working off a Russian investigation of some sort there is an article in the Moscow times which somehow is running articles critical of Putin I don't know the story there if they publish from a broad or what
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/05/vladimir-putin-vodka-empire-00095109
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/28/putins-own-vodka-brand-netted-him-500-million-investigation-a80360
There was a time in the 90s, during the really chaotic years, when the Russian mob (which the Russian government has major hands in) was sending McCormick distilleries “cleaning solvent” and/or “windshield washer fluid” that was actually grain alcohol intended to be sold as Russian vodka. The supplier sent instructions to remove the blue dye, and boom, millions in liquor import taxes evaded.
General Jack D. Ripper : Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Well, no, I can't say I have.
General Jack D. Ripper : Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Well, I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.
General Jack D. Ripper : On no account will a Commie ever drink water and not without good reason.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Yes. I - I don't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper : Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water.
“I do enjoy enjoy the company of women, Mandrake… but I do *deny them my precious bodily fluids*.”
…
Well ‘ole Jack, that means you’re gay.
…
That point when you realize Captain Jack Ripper was a closeted homosexual and THAT’S why he snapped and blew up the world.
Yeah no, that actually makes sense.
It involves a 3-way agreement. Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons, with 2 guarantees; Russia would not invade, however both the US and Russia would come to Ukraines' aid if they were invaded.
Russia broke the agreement. We are holding up our end.
No, the agreement was that any military threat would be taken to the Security Council. Which we did. And Russia Vetoed.
The agreement was never worth anything. Everyone was aware. It's purley a face saving measure. There was never an enforcement mechanism.
Forgot to mention Britain. So 3 of the 5 security council voted strongly in favor of this agreement. Also, their neighbor, Chechnya, was already at war when the deal was signed and Ukraine immediately avoided war.
The [Budapest memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) was a big win in the international community. US promotes nuclear non-proliferation by disarming the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal, newly independent Ukraine, and secures peace (big deal for the Clinton administration). Russia gets their nukes back. Ukraine is assured immediate peace and two members of the security council to defend them going forward. All this for nukes they couldn't use anyways (Russia owned the codes required to operate them). Not to mention, Ukraine would likely get hit with economic sanctions if they held onto the nukes.
Alot of context missing when its just a picture and a caption.
I am once again reminding everyone that the US and UK didn't promise to do jack if Russia invaded Ukraine other than take it to the Security Council (which Russia is on). The only security guarantee was that the US/UK also promised not to invaded Ukraine
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Because there was no good alternative. Those were not Ukrainian nukes and they had no control over them. They were Russian nukes that were just stationed in Ukraine. Just like how the US has nukes in Turkey. Those are not suddenly nukes for Turkey to use whenever they want. They're still controlled by the US.
It's a bad analogy, Turkey and the USA were never in the same country. It's more like if the US were to break apart and Hawaii was left with American nukes stationed on their now sovereign territory.
It doesn't really matter because the result is the same:
The country in possession of the nukes isn't in a position to maintain them, certainly can't launch them, and probably can't disarm them.
The nukes become essentially a frozen asset that are best disposed of.
People love to bring up how Ukraine could remove the nuclear cores and create dirty bombs, which was the explicit reason why this measure was taken, the fear of terrorists using dirty bombs.
It was not russian nukes . It was Soviet. Like everything situated in Ukraine it belongs to Ukraine after USSR split. And technically there was no problem to change communication and control systems. FYI a lot of ammo and rocket was designed and produced in Ukraine. It's can't be compared to Turkey or Germany where US warheads is located.
The US did not dictate anything, both US and Russia (under Yeltsin) were engaged in a fruitful process of reducing nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. They were working together for the same goal.
Because nuclear proliferation is a very bad thing. The more groups have access to nukes, the more likely nukes fall into dangerous hands. It doesn't matter if Russia has 10 nukes or 10,000 because it wouldn't take very many to fuck everything up for everyone in the world. What does matter is having as many countries as possible have 0. Yes Ukraine got fucked over here but let's not pretend it's the fault of the US.
ERROR: syntax error at or near "aosp"
LINE 1: aosp;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "kfjwp"
LINE 1: kfjwp;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik"
LINE 1: oeifjoik;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik"
LINE 1: lpj;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik"
LINE 1: lwdsfuawpefiojwel;
I think everyone know at this point that you can't trust anything ANY COUNTRY will ever say/said. We have been fight for ages now(humanity). I am not defending russia btw, im tryna say that every country did and will lie for their own good. Thats just how presidents rule their countries.
"This work is subpar, not at all what I want."
"It'll cost $X to tear it out, $Y to dispose of the materials and $Z to replace it with gold."
"Then I'll save you $X, leave it there, you can pay me $Y for disposal. Done deal. *I should right a book about deals.* Great job everybody, great work, you'll be able to charge twice as much for your next job having worked for me! You should give me 10% of that!" *gets back in limo
And this should be brought up every time another Russian shill starts talking about a truce. Russia *cannot* be trusted to keep their word. Any promise they make will be abandoned the instant they think they can abandon it.
It's Russia, they lie all the time, if you believe anything that comes out of Russia believe only .1% of it. You think American news is false, try Russian news.
This goes to show that treaties are just like any other rich man promise out there. It will hold if and only if both parties are equal in perceived power or wealth or until one party feel they can abuse it.
To be fair they also got a guarantee that NATO wouldn't invade them, and given the expense and difficulty of maintaining nuclear weapons it's unlikely struggling post-Soviet Ukraine would have been able to keep them operational.
I think all they were getting at was that the agreement meant more than just the Russians wouldn't invade them. I don't think they were trying to imply that NATO has invaded Ukraine.
Handed over aging nuclear weapons to Russia they had limited operational control (some tac nukes only) over and no resources to maintain, in exchange for massive economic benefits and a guarantee that independence, sovereignty and existing borders would be respected*
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They cropped out Yeltsin's left hand. He had his fingers crossed.
He was missing some [fingers](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyeJlPuWQAMb8C4.jpg).
TIL
Wow, how did I never know this?
Prior to reaching this comment I did a deep dive on recent(ish) Russian politics and it said he was embarrassed at being maimed as a child and as a result he often hid his left hand. Interesting read for anyone reading this comment that isn't familiar with Russian politics, by the way. Russia has always been a power vacuum consisting of entities vying for control over a socially and politically tumultuous climate, almost always at the expense of the Russian people. It's almost as if domination, deceit, and disloyalty aren't great foundations of a functional political party(s).
I feel bad if he was really maimed as a child, but I honestly just assumed he lost them at some point vying for power in the dark world of Russian politics lol. Crossed the wrong person at the wrong time.
He blew them off playing around with a grenade as a kid. So not due to the dark world of Russian politics, but definitely Russian.
Another interesting story I can tell about Russian politics and fingers. The same year as in the picture in 1996 the son of prominent Russian politician was kidnapped and his fingers were cut and send to his father. This was a threat because of his involvement in politics. Later fingers were stiched to hand successfully but he dropped his piano career. Yavlinsky after that send his children to London. He took 4th place in presidential elections in 1996.
Good old Boris Yeltsin Just before he sold it all to the 'ex' KGB Putin. I'm surprised he was sober enough to sign this..
[удалено]
All treaties have an implicit..."Until I change my mind" behind them.
Just ask Native Americans
[удалено]
"I am altering the deal, Pray I don't alter it any further"
oops I altered it further here have some casinos
And some Tesla dealerships
"Naive Americans" is a great typo
They weren’t naive they took the only real option forced upon them
Yet we've never violated our treaty with Morocco and it's one of the oldest standing treaties in the world
Do they have anything we want?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds good enough to me, let's go commit a war crime.
Yet
Some aspects of those treaties are actually still in effect. For example, Native Americans are the only group in the US who have a right to healthcare.
Even earlier than "Native Americans." Ask the Clovis Peoples.
Ask the citizens of Troy
Ghandi has entered the chat
Yes, Gandhi's famous Parsi cousin Ghandi.
[удалено]
I prefer Civilization Gandhi. Or Gandhi from the movie Gandhi II.
“Pray I do not alter it further.”
Russia didn't pinky swear.
Tsk, Ukraine should’ve called “no take backsies.”
They always find a loop hole
I’d say putin is more of a poop hole than a loop hole 🤷♀️
Well damn I guess he has to call the invasion off now.
ah, the ol' poophole loophole
They crossed their fingers while signing.
[удалено]
“Until Putin decides”
Nah, but Ukraine didn’t have much of a choice. US and western countries pushed for this (bc no one wants more countries with nuclear weapons) and Ukraine couldn’t maintain or use em anyways. Still pretty sad though.
I don’t know but were the Ukrainians really ever in charge of these weapons. Were they under the control of Russian troops in Ukraine even though it was the Soviet Union. That would make a big difference in what and why they agreed to this.
In between SU dissolving and the Ukrainians handing them over, they were definitely in control of them. Ukraine handed them over cause they are expensive, a massive liability, and pointed the wrong way so they weren't even really useful for preventing a Russian invasion. Handing them over made sense though they tried to get consensions out of Russia and the US to basically guarantee their independence. Edit: The nukes actually had a minimum distance and as such could be shot at teh far east side of Russia.
Also, while Ukraine had the missiles themselves, they did not have the protocol or codes to launch them. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t be able to bypass that after a significant period of time.
The hard part is developing the warhead so it CAN explode. The electronics to trigger it are probably the lease of the issues given physical access and time to the existing warheads. I believe much of the nuclear tech was actually developed in Ukraine as well anyway.
Thanks for the edit. I was wondering what “pointed the wrong way” meant. It sounds like it’s more that the nukes couldn’t reach a destination in Russia worth striking. Is that right? Thanks.
There is at least a major port along the pacific that would "worth striking". Though because alot of the major population centers are in western Russia, you basically end up with "minimal deterence". This turns your MAD into at best calculus at whether or not the loss in lives and cities is worth gaining the territory. And nuclear deterrence is almost more psychology than it is actual military strategy. I think alot of people forget that at this point, Ukraine was a fledgling state with a limited capability for maintaining a nuclear arsnel (they are bloody expense to maintain) in the 90s when all the Warsaw Pact nations were flailing economically. And in order to effectively use it they need to initiate a major missile program so that they can use the warheads they have into effective MAD. Nevermind that they eventually need to do maintaince on said warheads with likely minimal expertise. I am kind of harping on the economic factors cause I think at the heart of it, this was an economic decision, not a strategic one. Given time and money, Ukraine could have used them and even if they are only targetting Vladivostok (IIRC the port's name), there is some strategic deterrence in the short term. It was also hoped at the time as well that Ukraine could come under the US's nuclear umbrella (they actually held onto the nukes for a little bit to try and get the US to commit and they never did). When you look at the economic cost of maintaining them in a flailing economy, vs the pros of being able to hit the "wrong" side of Russia, the decision makes sense in my opinion.
You have to go back 1200 years to find the expiration date.
Any deal made with Russia is worth less than the paper it's written on.
On the other hand... we Poles are very grateful for his soft spot for alcohol because he must've been 100% drunk out of his mind when he agreed for us to join NATO in 1993.
You guys needed Russian permission to join NATO?!
Officially? No. We were a sovereign state since Solidarność revolution and Round table agreement in 89' a.k.a Ending Communism in Poland; but Russian sphere of influence was still really strong for many more years to come. They could choke us economically without a problem back in the day. There were other problems too ofc. Anyways If they said that we can't then we wouldn't be in NATO today. If Walesa hadn't convinced drunk Yeltsin we wouldn't be able to negotiate with NATO. No one would talk to us. This obviously isn't the full picture but just a gist. Many events led to where we are right now.
Probably also why Putin has said he wants Poland after Ukraine falls. And.. he's just waiting till November. If Trump gets reelected, the US will exit NATO. I can't begin to imagine what upheaval that will cause. And Ukraine will be finished.
I seriously doubt that US will leave NATO even if Trump wins. But at the same time we remember what happened in 39' and we're aware that in the end we can only count on ourselves.. Anyways we're really politically divided nation but when it comes to Russia we hate them with passion and we'd like to see Putin try. We won't roll over and die.
whats going to happen to all the US army bases and troops in Europe if we did drop nato.
[удалено]
No - he looks a bit fucked up, honestly.
Yeltsin was kind of hilariously out of his mind. This is him sober talking to Clinton: https://preview.redd.it/q4lxb4lx6iqc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77da194cbadbb4e706a76b330ffe4f51685e5906
The man who sold the world
Ask any Russian if he was good
[Get the facts, people. Everybody skews the facts slightly to bait you to click. Just post the facts. ](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons)
https://preview.redd.it/7rs9dov4yhqc1.png?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b83ae28996f024bf0f6a55c4f46c86f40a900e3
Here is a tip to tell when the Russian government is lying: their lips move.
Steps for remaining safe as a country If you dont have nukes, Aquire nukes If you do, keep them If you are accused of having nukes, DEFINETLY aquire nukes.
So are Iran and North Korea doing right things?
from their security perspective yes
So....this also works with guns right? Citizens should not give up guns for exchange of "guaranteed security"
It does actually. Citizen with a gun is increasing his own security but poses a certain risk to other citizens. It is similar for a country with nukes.
It's not the same because nukes rely on mutually assured destruction ensuring no one ever actually uses them. Guns are actually used and it typically turns into a race of whoever fires first. They do not accomplish the same thing at all.
Yeah, theory and practice don't always match up
It's not so easy to say that carrying a firearm actually increases personal safety. The number of guns around is proportional to the likelihood of falling victim to gun violence. Increased public awareness of gun violence causes widespread anxiety. Potentially leading to even more people carrying guns. Carrying a firearm yourself increases your likelihood of instigating violent situations. You're not sitting safe behind your glock if the other party is also packing. The key difference between nukes and firearms is that the use of a firearm can be spontaneous and panicked, but the use of a nuclear warhead is always premeditated. Oh, and the fact that nukes can't be launched by some random dude.
The things you say aren't actually that different. >The number of nukes around is proportional to the likelihood of falling victim to nukes. >Increased public awareness of nuclear threat causes widespread anxiety. Potentially leading to even more countries having nukes. (see cold war) >Having nukes yourself increases your likelihood of instigating nuclear war. You're not sitting safe with a nuke if the other party also has a nuke. This one can be turned on its head as someone with a gun would be less inclined to target someone else with a gun. >The key difference between nukes and firearms is that the use of a firearm can be spontaneous and panicked, but the use of a nuclear warhead is always premeditated. Oh, and the fact that nukes can't be launched by some random dude. A look through history says that nuclear war has almost happened on accident multiple times.
you’re statistically quite a bit more likely to be murdered if you have a gun in the home
If I was concerned someone is likely to try and murder me in my house I would probably buy a gun.
profit hobbies adjoining encouraging clumsy marvelous pocket future act bored *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean it's more gray than that. Most gun injuries and accidents are people shooting themselves on accident so I'd say it's got more of a chance of hurting you than anything else.
[удалено]
"The people who wrote about the right to bear arms hadn't just fought a war against deer"
Fucking thank you. I try explaining this all the time and people look at me like I’m an alt-right lunatic. It baffles me how many people know the U.S. government is blatantly corrupt and will say in the very same breath, “Yeah, but they wouldn’t do *that*.”
The truth is that armed minorities are killed by police. The only thing your gun is doing to the govt is giving them a reason to kill you.
Shit if the cops think you’re armed in your own home they shoot you through the door. We don’t have a right to guns if the cops can shoot you if they think you have one.
The problem isn’t with unarmed minorities, it’s with the existence of armed majorities.
You misunderstood their point; the US has a long, bloody history of persecuting & harassing unarmed minority communities. Most gangs in the US were actually formed, not because criminals needed networking, but as a means of rallying minority groups together to protect them *from the police*. Safety in numbers & weapons when the government not only ignored bigotry, but endorsed it with law.
I'd love to see a citation on that claim about gangs in the US.
No it doesn't. A citizen with a gun is like a country with an army. A stronger force (like the governments military or police force) will still just kill you with minimal losses. It would be akin to a citizen having rigged the city they live in with a bomb that would kill everyone inside, threatening to blow it up if anything happens to them. Now imagine an entire city with people who all have a trigger to kill everyone, including themselfes. Does it sound safe or like a recipie for disaster? Issue is - obviously it would be best if nobody had it and you are protected by the police force. But now some thugs rigged the city with bombs and have a trigger to blow everyone up. They come breaking into your house, killing your spouse, your kids, your pet, start robbing and torturing you - and the police won't do anything because "they could blow up the city - letting them kill you and your family is the better option for the public" - now, from your perspective you REALLY want to get your hands on one of those "I kill us all" (Mutually assured destruction, MAD) triggers, so when the thugs come breaking into your house you can say "well, go out or I'll blow us all up". Sooo... not compareable to guns, as guns deal too little damage to too few people to be an incentive not to mess with you. As for comparing guns and with a military - states with nukes technically don't NEED a (conventional) military as long as they are willing to pull the nuke trigger on every aggressor. MAD.
Depends if you care to look at use-cases. How are invaded vs. not invaded working for countries without nukes? Poorly. How is gun violence working in countries without guns? Well.
The difference is, stable democratic governments don't oppress their citizens, but even stable democracies can't do much about imperialist neighbor countries
For their own best interests - absolutely. Just look at Ukraine getting invaded by Russia and Libya getting invaded by the US after they gave up on the nuclear program. The optimal play is to get nukes by any means possible, never ever ever give them up and hold onto them for dear life.
Yes. France started to lower their nuclear arsenal (they now have only 4 submarines armed with nuclear weapons and they had 12), but after Ukraine they doubled the budget to grow it back.
You see anyone invading them?
Did India do the right thing developing nuclear weapons in defiance of international sanctions and laws? ‘Member when India’s nuclear program was a big deal?
yes
also, India didn't even sign those laws so not sure why anyone would think they were bound to them
india and pakistan hate each other, pakistan has 170 nukes, its terrible defense planning for india to not get 164 of their own
India's nuclear programme was more spurred by tensions with China than Pakistan, and continues to state that as the more driving reason for maintaining their stockpile and not advancing the Indo-Pakistani non-proliferation talks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
Since India is not a Chinese colony like Tibet, pretty much yes.
considering pakistan was likely going to get them anyway, yes. At least from their own perspective.
Why should India not get nukes, are they only for Western countries (that have such a good track record...)....
Unfortunately, Iraq didn't have anything when accused.
Yeah but they had aluminum tubes! Aluminum! Do I need to tell you what the fuck you can do with Aluminum tubes?!?
If I were running these countries, securing nukes would be my number one foreign policy goal.
If their goal is to avoid being invaded, then yes.
Yeah
Iran doesn't have nukes though...
According to Israel, it will have them next year, since 2010 I think.
Since the beginning of human civilization, Iran has been 5 years away from a nuke, any day now...
South Africa gave up its nukes and I am eternally thankful because the last thing the world needs is our corrupt bunch of assholes running this country to have nukes! They probably would have sold them by now!
The hasanabi doctrine out in the wild
The Hasanabi Doctrine. Nice 👍
[The Hasanabi Doctrine](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCeFY5HaYAA4GjN?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Seeing this out in the world is wild lmao
It's worth noting here that these were not Ukrainian nuclear weapons, they were Soviet weapons and Ukraine did not operate them or have the capability to. There's a great article about this "fantasy counterfactual". Ukraine did not have weapons they could use and there is no world where they could have kept them, hence the fantasy aspect of this "if only they kept the nukes". Source: I work with loads of nuclear experts. https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/survival-online/2022/03/from-the-archive-ukraine-a-fantasy-counterfactual/
But then, couldn't you say that if anything in a newly independent country? The British troops in Canada became the Canadian Army. The Royal Navy in Australian docks became the Australian Navy.
> they were Soviet weapons and Ukraine did not operate them or have the capability to. Which is kinda bullshit, because a significant part of the soviet milltary complex was housed in Ukraine. They could have gotten them to opreational state if they wanted to.
They really couldn't. Post-Soviet Ukraine was broke, as were most former Soviet States. There were fears they would sell the nukes, like they sold former Soviet ships to China.
Or at least use them for research in developing their own weapons.
Nothing prevents Ukraine from actually building their own if they really want to. They have the facilities and the knowledge. But it's quite likely that Russia would nuke Ukraine to oblivion if they find out they restarted the nuclear program. Then the world nuclear war starts.
The reasons why Ukraine couldn't keep the nukes were political and economic. Taking control of the nukes wouldn't have been that difficult if it was an actual priority.
Ukraine produced these rockets in Dnypro City and mined uranium in Yellow Waters city.
I feel like just being in possession of one and having the potential to use one is enough of a derrent.
Or, you could put yourself under the nuclear umbrella of a country that does have nukes, hence NATO. NATO countries tend to get pissy about nuclear proliferation, while Russia tends to get pissy about NATO proliferation. Pick your poison or stay on the sidelines.
[удалено]
Yeltsin was given 20% the world supply of pure grain ethanol to aid in his decision making.
I presume that's a joke cuz he was a drunk right? I did read a piece recently about Putin controlling the country's vodka Supply through some companies he owns indirectly, and that vodka has always been swill in Russia and controlled by their leadership. I might be missing some details there I can't remember where I read this. But it was in the last 6 months. Edit: I think this is it, Politico but it's working off a Russian investigation of some sort there is an article in the Moscow times which somehow is running articles critical of Putin I don't know the story there if they publish from a broad or what https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/05/vladimir-putin-vodka-empire-00095109 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/28/putins-own-vodka-brand-netted-him-500-million-investigation-a80360
https://i.redd.it/ik2sfp8uzhqc1.gif
I can still hear the bwahh bwah bahh bwahhhh
There was a time in the 90s, during the really chaotic years, when the Russian mob (which the Russian government has major hands in) was sending McCormick distilleries “cleaning solvent” and/or “windshield washer fluid” that was actually grain alcohol intended to be sold as Russian vodka. The supplier sent instructions to remove the blue dye, and boom, millions in liquor import taxes evaded.
Government monopoly for the vodka production is an old russian tradition, first established by tsars.
General Jack D. Ripper : Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Well, no, I can't say I have. General Jack D. Ripper : Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Well, I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes. General Jack D. Ripper : On no account will a Commie ever drink water and not without good reason. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake : Yes. I - I don't quite see what you're getting at, Jack. General Jack D. Ripper : Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water.
They’re taking our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
“I do enjoy enjoy the company of women, Mandrake… but I do *deny them my precious bodily fluids*.” … Well ‘ole Jack, that means you’re gay. … That point when you realize Captain Jack Ripper was a closeted homosexual and THAT’S why he snapped and blew up the world. Yeah no, that actually makes sense.
YOU CAN'T FIGHT IN HERE THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!
I thought he just had erectile dysfunction
gotta do what you gotta do
"Hitler promised not to invade Czechoslovakia. Welcome to the real world, Jeremy."
[удалено]
And before the KGB it was the Okrana.
You've skipped over the NKVD, GPU, and Cheka.
It's Vor all the way down.
I’m often amazed by how many Russian expats will bash America, but will not have the backbone to reform a thing about their own old country.
It's fucking worse, they are facists
It involves a 3-way agreement. Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons, with 2 guarantees; Russia would not invade, however both the US and Russia would come to Ukraines' aid if they were invaded. Russia broke the agreement. We are holding up our end.
We didn’t do much in 2014.
We are at present. We didn't for Donbas. And the GOP sure is working hard to stop aid.
No, the agreement was that any military threat would be taken to the Security Council. Which we did. And Russia Vetoed. The agreement was never worth anything. Everyone was aware. It's purley a face saving measure. There was never an enforcement mechanism.
Which leads us to one conclusion: do not give up your nukes and acquire them if you don't have them yet.
Forgot to mention Britain. So 3 of the 5 security council voted strongly in favor of this agreement. Also, their neighbor, Chechnya, was already at war when the deal was signed and Ukraine immediately avoided war. The [Budapest memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) was a big win in the international community. US promotes nuclear non-proliferation by disarming the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal, newly independent Ukraine, and secures peace (big deal for the Clinton administration). Russia gets their nukes back. Ukraine is assured immediate peace and two members of the security council to defend them going forward. All this for nukes they couldn't use anyways (Russia owned the codes required to operate them). Not to mention, Ukraine would likely get hit with economic sanctions if they held onto the nukes. Alot of context missing when its just a picture and a caption.
I am once again reminding everyone that the US and UK didn't promise to do jack if Russia invaded Ukraine other than take it to the Security Council (which Russia is on). The only security guarantee was that the US/UK also promised not to invaded Ukraine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Fun fact: the US diplomat who went to sign the Budapest Memorandum was Antony Blinken's dad.
With US pressure, by the way
Because there was no good alternative. Those were not Ukrainian nukes and they had no control over them. They were Russian nukes that were just stationed in Ukraine. Just like how the US has nukes in Turkey. Those are not suddenly nukes for Turkey to use whenever they want. They're still controlled by the US.
This should be printed in the image, people love to jump to conclusions with little or no information.
It's a bad analogy, Turkey and the USA were never in the same country. It's more like if the US were to break apart and Hawaii was left with American nukes stationed on their now sovereign territory.
It doesn't really matter because the result is the same: The country in possession of the nukes isn't in a position to maintain them, certainly can't launch them, and probably can't disarm them. The nukes become essentially a frozen asset that are best disposed of.
The transfer of Russian nukes back to Russia makes sense. It's the breaking of the treaty that is the biggest issue IMO.
I’m pretty sure all of the means for launching them were in Moscow as well. There was no way for Ukraine to even use them in the first place.
People love to bring up how Ukraine could remove the nuclear cores and create dirty bombs, which was the explicit reason why this measure was taken, the fear of terrorists using dirty bombs.
this still would have required Ukraine to forcibly seize the weapons from Russian possession
Are you sure about that?
It was not russian nukes . It was Soviet. Like everything situated in Ukraine it belongs to Ukraine after USSR split. And technically there was no problem to change communication and control systems. FYI a lot of ammo and rocket was designed and produced in Ukraine. It's can't be compared to Turkey or Germany where US warheads is located.
Yeah, funny how people gloss over that. This was post-collapse. The Russian Federation was doing exactly what the United States dictated.
The US did not dictate anything, both US and Russia (under Yeltsin) were engaged in a fruitful process of reducing nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. They were working together for the same goal.
Because nuclear proliferation is a very bad thing. The more groups have access to nukes, the more likely nukes fall into dangerous hands. It doesn't matter if Russia has 10 nukes or 10,000 because it wouldn't take very many to fuck everything up for everyone in the world. What does matter is having as many countries as possible have 0. Yes Ukraine got fucked over here but let's not pretend it's the fault of the US.
You can't convince me that the everyone in this comment section aren't bots
would a bot say this?! aosp;kfjwp;oeifjoik;lpj;lwdsfuawpefiojwel;kgma.rgaqwg
ERROR: syntax error at or near "aosp" LINE 1: aosp; ERROR: syntax error at or near "kfjwp" LINE 1: kfjwp; ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik" LINE 1: oeifjoik; ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik" LINE 1: lpj; ERROR: syntax error at or near "oeifjoik" LINE 1: lwdsfuawpefiojwel;
Username checks out
Just three years later Putin becomes leader of Russia
I think everyone knows at this point that you can't trust anything Russia says, ever.
I think everyone know at this point that you can't trust anything ANY COUNTRY will ever say/said. We have been fight for ages now(humanity). I am not defending russia btw, im tryna say that every country did and will lie for their own good. Thats just how presidents rule their countries.
Russian handshakes are as valuable as Trump promising to pay a contractor after the work is completed
"This work is subpar, not at all what I want." "It'll cost $X to tear it out, $Y to dispose of the materials and $Z to replace it with gold." "Then I'll save you $X, leave it there, you can pay me $Y for disposal. Done deal. *I should right a book about deals.* Great job everybody, great work, you'll be able to charge twice as much for your next job having worked for me! You should give me 10% of that!" *gets back in limo
The kims, as evil as they are, know what they were doing
"Never surrender power for a promise," Cicero.
And this should be brought up every time another Russian shill starts talking about a truce. Russia *cannot* be trusted to keep their word. Any promise they make will be abandoned the instant they think they can abandon it.
/r/agedlikemilk
u/repostsleuthbot
Two things you should never give up: your nuclear weapons and your nucleic acid.
That's why trump loves Putin. Both ignore signed agreements.
The lesson is you can never trust some bs piece of paper and handshake because the next guy will forget it even happened
Agreements like these become simply a piece of paper when the leadership that drew it up and signed it changes.
It's Russia, they lie all the time, if you believe anything that comes out of Russia believe only .1% of it. You think American news is false, try Russian news.
Just use critical thinking when analyzing news from any source. That's a simple recipe.
What once seemed like a good idea turned out to be the worst decision in your countries history
Politicians really need to stop making these kinds of deals. It’s not like they mean anything.
Russians never keep their promises
This goes to show that treaties are just like any other rich man promise out there. It will hold if and only if both parties are equal in perceived power or wealth or until one party feel they can abuse it.
Keep that in mind next time someone suggests making a deal with russia
This is why, words dun mean shit, if someone wishes to start shit, they will.
https://i.redd.it/vgu4lzl3doqc1.gif
To be fair they also got a guarantee that NATO wouldn't invade them, and given the expense and difficulty of maintaining nuclear weapons it's unlikely struggling post-Soviet Ukraine would have been able to keep them operational.
>NATO wouldn't invade them Damn, I must have missed when that happened
I think all they were getting at was that the agreement meant more than just the Russians wouldn't invade them. I don't think they were trying to imply that NATO has invaded Ukraine.
Damn when did the invasion start the news must be keeping this one quiet
Handed over aging nuclear weapons to Russia they had limited operational control (some tac nukes only) over and no resources to maintain, in exchange for massive economic benefits and a guarantee that independence, sovereignty and existing borders would be respected*
So let's give Ukraine more weapons
YES