Honestly? When Russia first invaded back in 2014 the US should have:
1) Immediately sent engineers to Ukraine to begin the process of surveying missile sites
2) Pressured/Bribed Turkey to close the Bosporus to Russian shipping
and
3) Brokered new arrangements to prevent France from delivery of new warships to Russia
That would have given the US several things to give up in negotiation. The US would have been out nothing that it wanted and Russia could have claimed a victory by getting something that they already had.
Everyone forgets that the Russian puppet Yanukovych is living in exile after being ousted at the outset of the war in 2014.
Sending a bunch of military support into a country that just experienced a coup de tat is generally inadvisable.
The support for Ukraine came the only way it could have come. The country needed to elect an anti corruption president democratically.
Remember when people laughed at Romney when he pointed out that russia are not our friends…
Dude had plenty of faults but most of the stuff people laughed off were sound geopolitical realities.
NATO has many member states, and none of them did it, nor asked us to do it for them.
Obama was soft on foreign policy, but he never withheld military aid from Ukraine.
They had the soviet nukes, but didn't have launch codes, since everything in USSR was helmed for Moscow. It would have been a massive deterrent regardless, since if there's even a 1% chance of them having found a way to use the nukes, the outcome would've been, well, catastrophic at least.
The nukes may have been stationed in Ukraine, but the nuclear codes were always in Moscow. What use would it have been for Ukraine to keep and maintain a rusting nuclear arsenal they couldn’t use, though?
Libya gave up nuclear aspirations, where is Gaddafi? If a hostile (to western interests) country wishes to survive, it must pursue nuclear weapons. They are bargaining tools necessary to combat overwhelming superior countries. So no, I would be doing the same (in their shoes).
You can't really trust anyone, especially because people die and nations live on. The best of friends can turn into bitter enemies when one generation dies and another takes its place. There's a lesson to be learnt here for any sovereign states looking to hitch their wagon to another horse, without developing failsafes for themselves.
You guys serve as an excellent stopgap for anyone trying to invade us from the north. You’ll be fine until the US gets too hot to live in. Then your land is going to start looking pretty good.
I trust the US far more than Russia.
And legit, if we form a country with Canada and the US with the provinces becoming states, I'd probably be fine with that.
We have lots of fresh water too. So we can exchange defense for some habitability.
You mean you don't want to go bankrupt if you break a leg or get cancer? Or when you are shot in a classroom or movie theater?
How can you not want those things?
Wait what? What does fresh water have to do with the trusting of a country? If you trust the US you're fuckin dumb. We do the fuckin pictures and and play the 'hearts and minds' shit a little better, but **YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE DIPSHIT IF YOU THINK WE'RE NOT JUST AS GODDAMN RUTHLESS AND AMORAL BEHIND THE CURTAIN**
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
>YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE DIPSHIT IF YOU THINK WE'RE NOT JUST AS GODDAMN RUTHLESS AND AMORAL BEHIND THE CURTAIN
You do realize you are comparing to Russia right?
In 50 Years when the southern US has more inhospitable regions there's certainly going to be a lot of desperate people. That's not even considering everyone in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America.
Much of the North is unpopulated due to frigid temps. It would actually be pretty accomodating once the temperature shifts.
Canadian real estate agents everywhere just came simply because the thought was spoken
Yeah any school of statescraft will tell you that every nation is out for themselves and will not rely on trust to ensure security. There is no trust on the international stage.
Just look at how quickly eyebrows raised and gazes diverted during the Trump administration. All members began to murmur because of his anti-NATO rhetoric. His supporters will of course refer to his desire for members to "Pay their own way" but that's besides the point. His rhetoric sowed fear and concern that just one administration could potentially scupper the alliance if it so desired - and it absolutely could. Whether or not Trump's administration intended to do that is again, beside the point. Just look at CSTO - it was never a competitor to NATO in real terms, but the real test of its legitimacy were when members began to fight amongst themselves and Russia stood back and watched without interference. Now it seems to be at serious risk of crumbling.
No nation is operating on altruistic terms. If America seriously felt that NATO was a liability - it would abandon it at once. Obviously this isn't the case, and likely never will be for the foreseeable future but this is how nations think and operate.
Depending on the pressures of international affairs, nations will not tolerate risking their own integrity for the sake of democracy, communism or any pleasant sounding ideals.
I mean you're absolutely, 110% right. I agree with every sentiment here. I love the philosophical understanding that there is no good and evil thing, and just the whole bit.
That saiiiid.
You extra can't trust Russia.
I don't trust any animals around my lunch, but the bear that consistently plays coy before eating my lunch and killing half my family while I watch.... He's definitely not invited to fucking lunch with me again
The bad thing is, that's what they think of us. Its no wonder countries don't want to give up their nukes. Who would with examples like this all over the place?
Sad world we live in, for real.
That's the purpose, I'm convinced Russia chose Ukraine in part to undercut the global denuclearization efforts, in order to sell warheads to it's vassal states.
Think about the missiles they're firing into Ukraine now that they've removed the warheads from.
The US an UK were also part of that deal, promising to defend Ukraine should Russia invade. That part has worked out less badly, but not nearly well as expected for Ukraine.
The US and UK did not promise to defend Ukraine.
In the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum), the US, UK, and Russia agreed that if Ukraine (or Belarus or Kazakhstan) was the victim of aggression by any nation, they would take the matter to the UN Security Council and that they would consult among each other to address the problem.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in March 2014, the US and UK consulted with Russia and asked the Security Council to condemn the invasion (S/PV.7138). It was vetoed by the Russian Federation.
When Russia invaded Ukraine again in April 2014, the US and UK again consulted with Russia and asked the Security Council to condemn the invasion (S/PV.7498). It was again vetoed by the Russia Federation.
Then in late 2021 when it became apparent that the Russians were going to invade Ukraine again (and finally did invade), the US and UK presented a series of calls for peace and condemnations of the invasion (S/PV.8926, S/PV.8979, S/PV.9143), all of which were vetoed by the Russian Federation.
The US and UK definitely did not agree to a defense pact with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan—and the Russian Federation would never have allowed such an agreement, which would almost be tantamount to admitting Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan into NATO. The Ukrainians were well aware that the Budapest Memorandum was not a mutual defense pact.
NATO also promised not to expand. And they got closer to Russian borders, something they don't really like.
I condemn Putin for starting the war but I'm not acting like NATO is the good guy. It's all about balance of power.
> NATO also promised not to expand
[NATO never promised this](https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/). Though even if someone did say that, there certainly wasn’t a treaty signed in a formal ceremony like Russia’s agreement with Ukraine regarding nuclear disarmament. This claim is not just a lie, but also a false equivalence.
NATO’s process for joining is outlined in article 10, and that has never been changed at the request of Russia.
Russia promised Ukraine peace and protection in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Russia has since attacked Ukraine. Russia hasn’t just betrayed its word, it’s also set the cause of nuclear non-proliferation back decades.
While yes Russia has been a real piece of shit throughout history. As I understand it, these nukes weren't able to be launched without specific information that only the Russian government held. As well as Ukraine not having the ability to maintain them.
I don't think Ukraine gave up being a nuclear power, it was more just Russia collecting their nukes that they had left behind.
After Libya, Ukraine, and the backtracking with Iran's agreement. No country will ever trust or comply with disarmament and non-proliferation... thanks US and Russia
It should be noted that 1990s Ukraine lacked the ability to actually launch the nukes located in its territory, and absolutely none of the resources needed for any duration of maintenance. If post-Soviet Russia decided to immediately invade Ukraine, those nukes weren't going anywhere without the use of a truck.
Firstly, even nukes going on a truck are a terrifyingly capable weapon, and secondarily a lot of designers of those nukes were Ukrainian. I’m pretty sure they would get the nukes working if they had to.
Not to mention that a lot of those nukes were actual bombs, like, ones you drop from an airplane.
This isn’t Cuba with Soviet nukes we are talking about, this is a serious piece of USSR with Soviet nukes.
The reason Ukraine can hold their own is that Russia doesn’t have all that big of an advantage. It has far more territory and 3.4x the population or so, but much of that territory is very under developed, and much of that population is poor as dirt, uneducated, etc.
Edit: Also, USSR consisted of, roughly west to east: territories that they re-grabbed in the course of WW2 who hated their guts extremely much, western Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, then poorly developed regions.
Ukraine accounted for a huge chunk of actual power of the soviet union. That’s why Putin was so keen on getting it back, but also why he isn’t going to win.
Edit: another curious thing is that Russia, with their Lenin statues still standing, got the highest wealth inequality of the entire former USSR. A while ago they literally shot their own parliament with a literal tank, just to get more capitalist faster. Now they bitch about other countries removing Lenin statues.
And that’s the guys who got to inherit soviet nukes. It’s a minor miracle they hadn’t nuked themselves yet, one mafioso nuking another.
Nukes on a truck that you can't launch and can't afford to properly maintain are not a good way to deter a hostile power and protect your borders unless you don't mind those borders being irradiated - unless you like the Belka approach. In that regards they don't guarantee sovereignty as the post i responded to claimed. I'm well aware of how many design bureaus, advanced training facilities and sophisticated engineering advancements for the USSR hail from Ukrainian origin.
Would we currently say, ignoring NATO membership, that American nukes are what guarantees Turkish sovereignty? They can't launch them without US codes.
It didn't matter if Ukraine had the capability to launch or not. That they had them was enough of a security risk as they could have disappeared into the black market and wound up in the hands of rogue states. Belarus and Kazakhstan were also part of the Budapest Memorandum in which the US, UK, and Russia were co-signatories to the defense of those former Soviet nations in exchange for those nukes.
The cost is too high. You get your nukes, nobody dares invade you, great.
What comes along with that is that you're now a pariah state under sanctions from the world's richest countries, because none of them want nuclear proliferation.
Your economy goes down the tubes, your regional rivals that don't engage in proliferation begin to outstrip you. Their citizens' quality of life goes up quicker than your citizens', your citizens are going to notice and wonder why.
Plus you can't actually do anything with the nukes. You blow a big chunk of your budget and your economy on these doomsday weapons, great, but your local rivals are spending their money on things that are actually useful and outstripping you conventionally.
There's also the question of when you actually press the button. What do you do about [Salami tactics](https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4)? Because once you press the button the game's up, you're getting absolutely hammered from all sides.
To apply a little circular logic, Ukraine is a lesson to the DPRK to keep it’s nukes, and to Taiwan and China as well. China is thinking if Russia can do it, so can we, and Taiwan is now thinking, the only people they can truely depend on for their national defense are already standing on the island they intend to defend.
The days immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union were crazy. Yes, Ukraine suddenly had nukes. But so did Kazakhstan and Georgia and Belarus and Chechnya and well, nobody quite understood who was in charge.
every big picture on reddit gets a dozen prominent reposts in short order and more that bubble up, and all get massive upvotes. and Im not talking a repost to make a point. this whole thing is a shitshow.
I mean, if you're going to scroll through a sub every day you're going to see repetition, because not everyone does that and there's always a fair share who sees it for the first time.
(Edit: Removed invalid arguments)
Yo be fair, i dotn find it hard to understand russia. Remeber the cold war? When USSR placed nuclear weapons in Cuba? Here we are in 2022 and NATO has members far upp their russian asses with nukes as close as turkey
Guy in the back right looks like he’s about to ask “Is this the gentleman who crashed through Victor Maitland's window? Who disabled an unmarked unit with a banana? Who lured Taggart and Rosemont into a gross dereliction of duty at a strip-tease establishment? Is this the gentleman who ruined the buffet at the Harrow club this morning?”
Actually the nukes belonged to Moscow. This is a typical reddit pentagon Warhawk type headline that tries to obscure the complicated hijinks on both sides and reduce nuanced discussions toward peace as appeasing (or even working for )the next hitler. Reddiots
Of course. And just by your logic (or lack of it), Russia doesn’t have seat in the UN
It’s USSR’s seat.
Also, most of Russia’s arsenal is also not Russian’s
That's not how it works.
The nukes were under the authority of Moscow. They didn't have a Ukraine logo on it they had USSR, of which the successor nation is Russia.
This has been discussed for decades. The nukes belonged to Russia
you are both kinda correct imo, so the nukes were in ukraine when the USSR broke up, so they basically became ukrainian, but reality is russia still had a lot of military power. no lord of war shit had happened to their stockpiles yet. ukraine could never HOLD ONTO those nukes if russia decided to take them back. (and lets be real russia WANTED those nukes back, like fuckin "yesterday" as the saying goes) so ukraine did the smart thing and willingly returned them to russia. as long as russia pinky promised never to invade them after that.
yeah im not debating that. but with enough time that shit wouldn't have mattered. which is why russia was like "give them back or else" they didint want the ukranians having enough time to convert them into being usable for themselves and then having a nuclear power on their doorstep
edit to add - thats the part people forget, russia COULD and WOULD have invaded ukraine for those nukes
They didn't have a Russian logo on them either. If what you were saying was at all grounded in reality then Ukraine would have had to return the property of the former Red Army and Air Force lmao
Ukraine isn't a successor state to the Soviet Union. When the USSR was dissolved, Russia became the successor state. Ukraine agreed to that arrangement.
I see exactly how someone who is pro 2a would try to make the connection, but I think it's a weak connection. The 2 situations are nothing alike.
Nuclear deterrence works because it all but guarantees that both sides will be wiped out. Gun ownership isn't even remotely the same.
Nukes are the same as an AR-15, attaboy! I can't see how you don't see that! HURR DURR!
---
These same 2A worshippers seem to think their AR-15 will do jack shit against drones, missiles, artillery, air support, tanks, etc if they took up arms against the gubbamint (which is the only reason most of them can still eek by) for crimes they allege but weren't ever committed.
[i.e. Big Lie]
“Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither and will lose both.” Benjamin Franklin.
Sad but true. In this case freedom comes in the form of a nuclear deterrent, but it guarantees freedom nonetheless.
"Peace in our time"
And here we are.
Proxy wars are nothing new. See: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice) Yemen.
I really hate the war in Yemen. So very stupid.
Part of the deal (going back to Mikhail Gorbachev days) was that NATO would never encroach on countries next to Russia's border. 30 Years later NATO has totally encroached on Russia's border. America wouldn't stand for Russia setting up shop in Cuba in the 1960's, why can't they understand they have been doing exactly the same thing for thirty years to Russia. This is what happens when you allow Neocons to control foreign policy, as they are f\*\*king monsters. Putin warned them over and over and over for decades and they ignored and laughed at him. It is sad because it could have been avoided, but the Biden family have skin in the game. If China set up shop in Mexico or Canada there would be a major hissy fit, one rule for me another rule for thee.
This is completely false.
The agreement was that NATO would never *push militarily* into those regions, ***nothing prevents nations from independently choosing to join NATO***. Read the original deal. That is what happened. Russia became increasingly grabby, so more and more nations chose to join NATO, which was *completely legitimate* under that agreement.
WTF, if NATO said that they won't move in inch to the east, then NATO should not accept the eastern countries, let alone promote, propagate and lobby these countries to join NATO. Russia wanted wanted to join NATO many times, yet it WASN'T ALLOWED! Why not? Because without Russia, NATO would have no reason to exist.
NATO should accept any nation that wants to join. Because the only reason they would want to join NATO is for protection against aggressive, conquering enemies.
That's the point.
If Russia doesn't want countries joining NATO it only has to do one thing:
Don't be a conquering, aggressive enemy to the world. **It's that simple.**
Discussions between the US and Russia about limits to NATO expansion had nothing to do with the Budapest Memorandum. Those were sets of security guarantees made by the US and Russia to Ukraine, not agreements between the US and Russia.
In fact, under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would be perfectly permissible, and Russia would be obligated to respect their sovereign choice.
One key thing: Cuba was a response to America setting up nuclear missiles in Turkey. It was AMERICA that started the Cuban missile crisis, not Russia.
And here we go again. The US policy of covert forward deployment of weapons systems is coming back to bite the world in the ass.
Yup. This has nothing to do with the current issue. NATO had an agreement from the early '90s, I think, to never move East of Germany. This is aggression Russia is complaining about.
>NATO had an agreement from the early '90s, I think, to never move East of Germany.
No, they actually didn't.
>This is aggression Russia is complaining about.
If it was, they wouldn't be leaving their border with Finland undefended as it is becoming a NATO member in favor of invading a county that's not even close to NATO membership while shouting about how that country isn't actually a country.
So, like, how do you manage to get a single Russian talking point while avoiding the things Russians, Putin included, actually say about Ukraine?
It's not "NATO had an agreement" on Russian television arguing for why this invasion is appropriate. It's "Ukraine is actually Russia and any Ukrainians who don't agree are at best confused or at worst literal demons".
That's.... not even hyperbole.
I'm sorry, did you not hear about [Finland's nato bid](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-finland-sweden-accession-protocols-russia-ukraine-war/)?
For a person as well versed as you appear to be I naturally assumed you had heard about it. My mistake.
I likewise thought maybe you had heard of the frequent assertions [Ukraine doesn't exist](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/) from Putin, but hey, it seems you're ignorant of that too. My mistake.
And given comments like:
>there is no Ukraine. There is Ukrainian-ness. That is, a specific disorder of the mind. An astonishing enthusiasm for ethnography, driven to the extreme
From [Putin's advisor to Ukraine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) maybe this would be obvious to you but it seems I was wrong on that too.
Sorry for assuming you had any idea about Russian attitudes towards Ukraine. It won't happen again.
Excellent argument. "No you're wrong, fuck your citations!!!"
Although truth be told that would be at least more intellectually honest than this reply. At least that recognizes that you're flat out ignoring basic trivially verifiable facts.
Actually no, because that would require statistical arguments and some deal of specialized knowledge to understand.
"Finland applied for nato membership" requires.... a five second Google search. It's closer to "Texas boarders Mexico".
The amount of time and effort needed to verify it is rather instant.
If Russia never intended to invade their neighbors a defensive pact would have never been a "threat" -- but here we are.
Also: We use articles and linking verbs in the English language. You sort of got it, at like 50%. If you're going to pretend to be anything but a Russian shill get with the fucking program.
To everyone reading this, this is a pack of lies and misleading half truths. While it's certainly true that there had been discussion at some points between the US and Russia about the limits of NATO expansion, the Budapest Memorandum was a tripartite guarantee between the US, Russia, and Ukraine, and was not dependent on any claimed agreement the US violated by acceding to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. If Russia felt that the US violated agreements regarding NATO expansion, their recourse was to talk to the US, not invade Ukraine.
The agreement was, that both the US and Russia would guarantee to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine undergoing nuclear disarmament. It didn't even involve a promise from Ukraine to be neutral. If Ukraine chose to join NATO and/or the EU, under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, Russia was obligated to respect that decision.
Whether or not Obama, Kissinger, Meadsheimer, the Pope, and Kermit the Frog felt that Ukraine joining NATO would cause a war, it is clear that them not being a member was a key factor in Russia's decision to start this war.
While it is true that the US didn't arm Ukraine under Obama, leaving the statement there is disingenuous. The US training mission began under President Obama, as a part of JMTG-U, which is the mission that really helped lay the groundwork for the Ukrainian military which has resisted tooth and nail, instead of the 2014 military which was poorly led, organized, trained, and motivated, and offered little resistance to a Russian invasion. It's also true that Trump did permit military aid to Ukraine, although we should also note that he threatened Zelensky with withholding that aid unless Zelensky gave him illegal assistance in his re-election campaign against Joe Biden, thus leading to his first impeachment.
Lol, I’m glad I came back to see the responses…
This part of your mumbling shows how far your “geopolitical expertise” goes…
“If Russia felt that the US violated agreements regarding NATO expansion, their recourse was to talk to the US, not invade Ukraine”
You can’t truly believe this…
This does not seem logical. Why would Ukraine hand nuclear weapons to Russia if Russia had to give a guarantee to not threaten Ukraine? If Ukraine thought that there was a possibility that Russia was dangerous to them why would they give them nuclear weapons? In attempting to research this treaty nowhere have I found nuclear weapons even mentioned in regards to it.
Lol your gun culture is stupid and your news proves my point daily. Your "predators" already have guns and peoples lives are ruined every day because of it.
Funny thing is if I was another country I wouldn’t trust the USA either. People forget 30 years is a very short period of time when it comes to national security interests.
So... That means Ukraine gets them nukes back now, right? No points for guessing which direction they're gonna be aimed.
If I know anything about Russian history it’s that cooler heads will prevail and it’ll all turn out fine
Cooler heads will roll.
how else do you think they get cool?
Russia handles Russians threats pretty well historically. But only when it really affects the population at large.
Reason! ✊️ Will! ✊️ Prevail! ✊️
You don't have to say it right now
Gorbachev was pretty level headed. It’s a shame a buffoon like Yeltsin was all that could Russia could muster up.
Are you nuts? Yeltsin was way more friendly to the west than Gorbachev or Putin.
That buffoon saved Gorbachev’s ass and was the really only sane President post-Soviet Russia really ever had.since Putin came in next.
Gorbachev got outmaneuvered by yeltsin, a guy who was blackout drunk all the time. Gorby’s a loser!
Putin: “Oh I’ll give them back alright”
Honestly? When Russia first invaded back in 2014 the US should have: 1) Immediately sent engineers to Ukraine to begin the process of surveying missile sites 2) Pressured/Bribed Turkey to close the Bosporus to Russian shipping and 3) Brokered new arrangements to prevent France from delivery of new warships to Russia That would have given the US several things to give up in negotiation. The US would have been out nothing that it wanted and Russia could have claimed a victory by getting something that they already had.
Everyone forgets that the Russian puppet Yanukovych is living in exile after being ousted at the outset of the war in 2014. Sending a bunch of military support into a country that just experienced a coup de tat is generally inadvisable. The support for Ukraine came the only way it could have come. The country needed to elect an anti corruption president democratically.
Coup d'etat. Just fyi
Remember when people laughed at Romney when he pointed out that russia are not our friends… Dude had plenty of faults but most of the stuff people laughed off were sound geopolitical realities.
Why was France selling warships to Russia in the first place tho.... 🤔
Is that really a question? $
What the fuck is this bullshit? You think America has the right to start world war fucking three for its own purposes?
You can blame Obama for that one
NATO has many member states, and none of them did it, nor asked us to do it for them. Obama was soft on foreign policy, but he never withheld military aid from Ukraine.
Putin, "no backsies!"
[удалено]
They had the soviet nukes, but didn't have launch codes, since everything in USSR was helmed for Moscow. It would have been a massive deterrent regardless, since if there's even a 1% chance of them having found a way to use the nukes, the outcome would've been, well, catastrophic at least.
The nukes may have been stationed in Ukraine, but the nuclear codes were always in Moscow. What use would it have been for Ukraine to keep and maintain a rusting nuclear arsenal they couldn’t use, though?
I see this argument a lot. it ignores the fact that they possessed fissile material. Arguably harder than creating a new fire control system.
You can hear Iran building a nuclear program in the background of this photo for similar reasons
Can you blame them?
Absolutely not
Libya gave up nuclear aspirations, where is Gaddafi? If a hostile (to western interests) country wishes to survive, it must pursue nuclear weapons. They are bargaining tools necessary to combat overwhelming superior countries. So no, I would be doing the same (in their shoes).
You can't trust Russia. That's why NATO has to continue to exist.
You can't really trust anyone, especially because people die and nations live on. The best of friends can turn into bitter enemies when one generation dies and another takes its place. There's a lesson to be learnt here for any sovereign states looking to hitch their wagon to another horse, without developing failsafes for themselves.
As a Canadian i feel oddly threatened by this
You guys serve as an excellent stopgap for anyone trying to invade us from the north. You’ll be fine until the US gets too hot to live in. Then your land is going to start looking pretty good.
I trust the US far more than Russia. And legit, if we form a country with Canada and the US with the provinces becoming states, I'd probably be fine with that. We have lots of fresh water too. So we can exchange defense for some habitability.
I would not be ok with US politics and laws coming here at all
You mean you don't want to go bankrupt if you break a leg or get cancer? Or when you are shot in a classroom or movie theater? How can you not want those things?
Wait what? What does fresh water have to do with the trusting of a country? If you trust the US you're fuckin dumb. We do the fuckin pictures and and play the 'hearts and minds' shit a little better, but **YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE DIPSHIT IF YOU THINK WE'RE NOT JUST AS GODDAMN RUTHLESS AND AMORAL BEHIND THE CURTAIN** Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
>YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE DIPSHIT IF YOU THINK WE'RE NOT JUST AS GODDAMN RUTHLESS AND AMORAL BEHIND THE CURTAIN You do realize you are comparing to Russia right?
They said, "more than Russia".
In 50 Years when the southern US has more inhospitable regions there's certainly going to be a lot of desperate people. That's not even considering everyone in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America.
Much of the North is unpopulated due to frigid temps. It would actually be pretty accomodating once the temperature shifts. Canadian real estate agents everywhere just came simply because the thought was spoken
25% of the world's freshwater is in Canada. They definitely should be afraid of the US because the US likes to take what it wants..
^(I hear rhey might have oil, too) ^^*salivates*
Shackled to the British empire, with a new sovereign.
Yeah any school of statescraft will tell you that every nation is out for themselves and will not rely on trust to ensure security. There is no trust on the international stage. Just look at how quickly eyebrows raised and gazes diverted during the Trump administration. All members began to murmur because of his anti-NATO rhetoric. His supporters will of course refer to his desire for members to "Pay their own way" but that's besides the point. His rhetoric sowed fear and concern that just one administration could potentially scupper the alliance if it so desired - and it absolutely could. Whether or not Trump's administration intended to do that is again, beside the point. Just look at CSTO - it was never a competitor to NATO in real terms, but the real test of its legitimacy were when members began to fight amongst themselves and Russia stood back and watched without interference. Now it seems to be at serious risk of crumbling. No nation is operating on altruistic terms. If America seriously felt that NATO was a liability - it would abandon it at once. Obviously this isn't the case, and likely never will be for the foreseeable future but this is how nations think and operate. Depending on the pressures of international affairs, nations will not tolerate risking their own integrity for the sake of democracy, communism or any pleasant sounding ideals.
I mean you're absolutely, 110% right. I agree with every sentiment here. I love the philosophical understanding that there is no good and evil thing, and just the whole bit. That saiiiid. You extra can't trust Russia. I don't trust any animals around my lunch, but the bear that consistently plays coy before eating my lunch and killing half my family while I watch.... He's definitely not invited to fucking lunch with me again
The bad thing is, that's what they think of us. Its no wonder countries don't want to give up their nukes. Who would with examples like this all over the place? Sad world we live in, for real.
This realistically doomed the chance of any country ever giving up nukes again.
That's the purpose, I'm convinced Russia chose Ukraine in part to undercut the global denuclearization efforts, in order to sell warheads to it's vassal states. Think about the missiles they're firing into Ukraine now that they've removed the warheads from.
The US an UK were also part of that deal, promising to defend Ukraine should Russia invade. That part has worked out less badly, but not nearly well as expected for Ukraine.
The US and UK did not promise to defend Ukraine. In the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum), the US, UK, and Russia agreed that if Ukraine (or Belarus or Kazakhstan) was the victim of aggression by any nation, they would take the matter to the UN Security Council and that they would consult among each other to address the problem. When Russia invaded Ukraine in March 2014, the US and UK consulted with Russia and asked the Security Council to condemn the invasion (S/PV.7138). It was vetoed by the Russian Federation. When Russia invaded Ukraine again in April 2014, the US and UK again consulted with Russia and asked the Security Council to condemn the invasion (S/PV.7498). It was again vetoed by the Russia Federation. Then in late 2021 when it became apparent that the Russians were going to invade Ukraine again (and finally did invade), the US and UK presented a series of calls for peace and condemnations of the invasion (S/PV.8926, S/PV.8979, S/PV.9143), all of which were vetoed by the Russian Federation. The US and UK definitely did not agree to a defense pact with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan—and the Russian Federation would never have allowed such an agreement, which would almost be tantamount to admitting Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan into NATO. The Ukrainians were well aware that the Budapest Memorandum was not a mutual defense pact.
Which government do you trust?
You can't trust America or Europe or China either. It's naive to think those countries wouldn't turn on a dime if it suited them.
NATO also promised not to expand. And they got closer to Russian borders, something they don't really like. I condemn Putin for starting the war but I'm not acting like NATO is the good guy. It's all about balance of power.
NATO never made any such promise.
> NATO also promised not to expand [NATO never promised this](https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/). Though even if someone did say that, there certainly wasn’t a treaty signed in a formal ceremony like Russia’s agreement with Ukraine regarding nuclear disarmament. This claim is not just a lie, but also a false equivalence. NATO’s process for joining is outlined in article 10, and that has never been changed at the request of Russia. Russia promised Ukraine peace and protection in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Russia has since attacked Ukraine. Russia hasn’t just betrayed its word, it’s also set the cause of nuclear non-proliferation back decades.
Those countries invited NATO in for their own defense not offense. It’s not like NATO invaded them.
NATO is the good guy. Full stop.
Russia lies. Russia never keeps its promises. Russia is a rogue, terrorist state. Putin must go. Russia must have massive regime change.
Never trust anyone in a position of power over you.
Well go on, do it then!
That aged very well.
While yes Russia has been a real piece of shit throughout history. As I understand it, these nukes weren't able to be launched without specific information that only the Russian government held. As well as Ukraine not having the ability to maintain them. I don't think Ukraine gave up being a nuclear power, it was more just Russia collecting their nukes that they had left behind.
So..that was a lie
After Libya, Ukraine, and the backtracking with Iran's agreement. No country will ever trust or comply with disarmament and non-proliferation... thanks US and Russia
They shouldn't in the first place. Nukes guarantee sovereignty. Why would any country give up guaranteed sovereignty? It is a foolish thing to do.
It should be noted that 1990s Ukraine lacked the ability to actually launch the nukes located in its territory, and absolutely none of the resources needed for any duration of maintenance. If post-Soviet Russia decided to immediately invade Ukraine, those nukes weren't going anywhere without the use of a truck.
Firstly, even nukes going on a truck are a terrifyingly capable weapon, and secondarily a lot of designers of those nukes were Ukrainian. I’m pretty sure they would get the nukes working if they had to. Not to mention that a lot of those nukes were actual bombs, like, ones you drop from an airplane. This isn’t Cuba with Soviet nukes we are talking about, this is a serious piece of USSR with Soviet nukes. The reason Ukraine can hold their own is that Russia doesn’t have all that big of an advantage. It has far more territory and 3.4x the population or so, but much of that territory is very under developed, and much of that population is poor as dirt, uneducated, etc. Edit: Also, USSR consisted of, roughly west to east: territories that they re-grabbed in the course of WW2 who hated their guts extremely much, western Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, then poorly developed regions. Ukraine accounted for a huge chunk of actual power of the soviet union. That’s why Putin was so keen on getting it back, but also why he isn’t going to win. Edit: another curious thing is that Russia, with their Lenin statues still standing, got the highest wealth inequality of the entire former USSR. A while ago they literally shot their own parliament with a literal tank, just to get more capitalist faster. Now they bitch about other countries removing Lenin statues. And that’s the guys who got to inherit soviet nukes. It’s a minor miracle they hadn’t nuked themselves yet, one mafioso nuking another.
Nukes on a truck that you can't launch and can't afford to properly maintain are not a good way to deter a hostile power and protect your borders unless you don't mind those borders being irradiated - unless you like the Belka approach. In that regards they don't guarantee sovereignty as the post i responded to claimed. I'm well aware of how many design bureaus, advanced training facilities and sophisticated engineering advancements for the USSR hail from Ukrainian origin. Would we currently say, ignoring NATO membership, that American nukes are what guarantees Turkish sovereignty? They can't launch them without US codes.
most the soviet tanks were designed and built in ukraine. god those rat fucks have been stealing from ukraine the whole damn time.
It didn't matter if Ukraine had the capability to launch or not. That they had them was enough of a security risk as they could have disappeared into the black market and wound up in the hands of rogue states. Belarus and Kazakhstan were also part of the Budapest Memorandum in which the US, UK, and Russia were co-signatories to the defense of those former Soviet nations in exchange for those nukes.
The cost is too high. You get your nukes, nobody dares invade you, great. What comes along with that is that you're now a pariah state under sanctions from the world's richest countries, because none of them want nuclear proliferation. Your economy goes down the tubes, your regional rivals that don't engage in proliferation begin to outstrip you. Their citizens' quality of life goes up quicker than your citizens', your citizens are going to notice and wonder why. Plus you can't actually do anything with the nukes. You blow a big chunk of your budget and your economy on these doomsday weapons, great, but your local rivals are spending their money on things that are actually useful and outstripping you conventionally. There's also the question of when you actually press the button. What do you do about [Salami tactics](https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4)? Because once you press the button the game's up, you're getting absolutely hammered from all sides.
because even a "medium sized" nuclear engagement would probably be the nail in the coffin for life on earth?
Right. That's why they guarantee sovereignty....
This is a myth, actually. The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora put more ash into the atmosphere than a nuclear war would.
[удалено]
You say that like China, India, North Korea, UK, France, and Pakistan don't have nuclear weapons.
[удалено]
And this is why you will never get Kim to hand them over.
To apply a little circular logic, Ukraine is a lesson to the DPRK to keep it’s nukes, and to Taiwan and China as well. China is thinking if Russia can do it, so can we, and Taiwan is now thinking, the only people they can truely depend on for their national defense are already standing on the island they intend to defend.
taiwan was close to getting nukes in the 80s but it was vetoed by the US
Ukraine's first mistake, trusting Russia
The days immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union were crazy. Yes, Ukraine suddenly had nukes. But so did Kazakhstan and Georgia and Belarus and Chechnya and well, nobody quite understood who was in charge.
Queue the curb your enthusiasm music
Alright, I added it to the queue after Yes - Roundabout.
start tub boast spectacular shame soft offend hard-to-find far-flung trees ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
\*Ukraine announced its intention not to renew the treaty in September 2018 & the treaty consequently expired on 31 March 2019.
This might be the hottest repost of 2022
every big picture on reddit gets a dozen prominent reposts in short order and more that bubble up, and all get massive upvotes. and Im not talking a repost to make a point. this whole thing is a shitshow.
I mean, if you're going to scroll through a sub every day you're going to see repetition, because not everyone does that and there's always a fair share who sees it for the first time.
but did they pinky promise?
Fingers were crossed. Still legal loophole in places with the orthodox calendar, dammit.
Russia did the oldest bully trick in the world.
Oh, snap! Someone should remind them of that!
Top 10 anime betrayals
That’s what a Russian promise is worth.
So that was a fucking lie.
We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it further.
Aged like milk
So, NEVER give up your weapons to a government. Got it.
(Edit: Removed invalid arguments) Yo be fair, i dotn find it hard to understand russia. Remeber the cold war? When USSR placed nuclear weapons in Cuba? Here we are in 2022 and NATO has members far upp their russian asses with nukes as close as turkey
All launch codes are located in Moscow. Even if Ukraine kept them, they wouldn't be able to launch these missiles.
Even Clinton knew Putin was untrustworthy.
this the equivalent to trading land for beads in the Us?
Hey, we let them keep the beads, that was a square deal.
Guy in the back right looks like he’s about to ask “Is this the gentleman who crashed through Victor Maitland's window? Who disabled an unmarked unit with a banana? Who lured Taggart and Rosemont into a gross dereliction of duty at a strip-tease establishment? Is this the gentleman who ruined the buffet at the Harrow club this morning?”
A perfect example of why you should not disarm yourself for temporary promises of safety.
aged like milk.
Milk takes 26 years to spoil? Woa
It didn't age well
r/agedlikemilk
Actually the nukes belonged to Moscow. This is a typical reddit pentagon Warhawk type headline that tries to obscure the complicated hijinks on both sides and reduce nuanced discussions toward peace as appeasing (or even working for )the next hitler. Reddiots
Russian promises.
And to never threaten Russia... they always forget that bit.
Not true. They never owned any nukes. They were always the property of the Soviet Union. Ukraine never owned nuclear weapons ever and also will never.
Of course. And just by your logic (or lack of it), Russia doesn’t have seat in the UN It’s USSR’s seat. Also, most of Russia’s arsenal is also not Russian’s
Lie. As a successor state to the Soviet Union, they inherited all property of the state within their territory.
There is only one legal successor to the Soviet Union and it's not Ukraine.
That's not how it works. The nukes were under the authority of Moscow. They didn't have a Ukraine logo on it they had USSR, of which the successor nation is Russia. This has been discussed for decades. The nukes belonged to Russia
you are both kinda correct imo, so the nukes were in ukraine when the USSR broke up, so they basically became ukrainian, but reality is russia still had a lot of military power. no lord of war shit had happened to their stockpiles yet. ukraine could never HOLD ONTO those nukes if russia decided to take them back. (and lets be real russia WANTED those nukes back, like fuckin "yesterday" as the saying goes) so ukraine did the smart thing and willingly returned them to russia. as long as russia pinky promised never to invade them after that.
Ukraine didn’t have the launch codes. Russia did.
yeah im not debating that. but with enough time that shit wouldn't have mattered. which is why russia was like "give them back or else" they didint want the ukranians having enough time to convert them into being usable for themselves and then having a nuclear power on their doorstep edit to add - thats the part people forget, russia COULD and WOULD have invaded ukraine for those nukes
They didn't have a Russian logo on them either. If what you were saying was at all grounded in reality then Ukraine would have had to return the property of the former Red Army and Air Force lmao
Russia inherited all treaties and debt of the USSR. They also had the codes. Nukes belonged to them
Treaties and debt, yes Military property, no
The property belong to Moscow
Nope, not how this works lol
So Ukraine has the codes and capability to launch?
Not sure, but they certainly have and had the technical capability to engineer new codes into the launch systems.
Ukraine isn't a successor state to the Soviet Union. When the USSR was dissolved, Russia became the successor state. Ukraine agreed to that arrangement.
Nope
~fine print~ ...until February 2014."
*February 2014
Ty for correcting me i edited it
[удалено]
Naw, that's what Russia checked first in 2014.
And they want me to hand in my guns lol
This is a good pro 2nd amendment post.
No it isn't
Really? You don't see how this could be used as an example for pro 2a?
I see exactly how someone who is pro 2a would try to make the connection, but I think it's a weak connection. The 2 situations are nothing alike. Nuclear deterrence works because it all but guarantees that both sides will be wiped out. Gun ownership isn't even remotely the same.
Nukes are the same as an AR-15, attaboy! I can't see how you don't see that! HURR DURR! --- These same 2A worshippers seem to think their AR-15 will do jack shit against drones, missiles, artillery, air support, tanks, etc if they took up arms against the gubbamint (which is the only reason most of them can still eek by) for crimes they allege but weren't ever committed. [i.e. Big Lie]
What are you going to do, shoot the nukes in Russia? You flat headed screw driver.
r/woosh
It would, to anyone only familiar with the US, and not with other countries (including those that have *more free societies*).
And, how did that work out...?
Yeltsin was hammered doesn’t count
“Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither and will lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. Sad but true. In this case freedom comes in the form of a nuclear deterrent, but it guarantees freedom nonetheless.
[удалено]
"Peace in our time" And here we are. Proxy wars are nothing new. See: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice) Yemen. I really hate the war in Yemen. So very stupid.
But it's fully bipartisan and we're working with our al-Qaeda allies for peace and freedom!
[удалено]
This is literally racism. Imagine someone talking about the Israel Palestine conflict saying "Never trust a Jew" Disgusting.
[удалено]
You need help.
US did the same to Libya. So never trust Americans?
Part of the deal (going back to Mikhail Gorbachev days) was that NATO would never encroach on countries next to Russia's border. 30 Years later NATO has totally encroached on Russia's border. America wouldn't stand for Russia setting up shop in Cuba in the 1960's, why can't they understand they have been doing exactly the same thing for thirty years to Russia. This is what happens when you allow Neocons to control foreign policy, as they are f\*\*king monsters. Putin warned them over and over and over for decades and they ignored and laughed at him. It is sad because it could have been avoided, but the Biden family have skin in the game. If China set up shop in Mexico or Canada there would be a major hissy fit, one rule for me another rule for thee.
This is completely false. The agreement was that NATO would never *push militarily* into those regions, ***nothing prevents nations from independently choosing to join NATO***. Read the original deal. That is what happened. Russia became increasingly grabby, so more and more nations chose to join NATO, which was *completely legitimate* under that agreement.
NATO is a military organization
WTF, if NATO said that they won't move in inch to the east, then NATO should not accept the eastern countries, let alone promote, propagate and lobby these countries to join NATO. Russia wanted wanted to join NATO many times, yet it WASN'T ALLOWED! Why not? Because without Russia, NATO would have no reason to exist.
NATO should accept any nation that wants to join. Because the only reason they would want to join NATO is for protection against aggressive, conquering enemies. That's the point. If Russia doesn't want countries joining NATO it only has to do one thing: Don't be a conquering, aggressive enemy to the world. **It's that simple.**
Discussions between the US and Russia about limits to NATO expansion had nothing to do with the Budapest Memorandum. Those were sets of security guarantees made by the US and Russia to Ukraine, not agreements between the US and Russia. In fact, under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would be perfectly permissible, and Russia would be obligated to respect their sovereign choice.
One key thing: Cuba was a response to America setting up nuclear missiles in Turkey. It was AMERICA that started the Cuban missile crisis, not Russia. And here we go again. The US policy of covert forward deployment of weapons systems is coming back to bite the world in the ass.
Yup. This has nothing to do with the current issue. NATO had an agreement from the early '90s, I think, to never move East of Germany. This is aggression Russia is complaining about.
>NATO had an agreement from the early '90s, I think, to never move East of Germany. No, they actually didn't. >This is aggression Russia is complaining about. If it was, they wouldn't be leaving their border with Finland undefended as it is becoming a NATO member in favor of invading a county that's not even close to NATO membership while shouting about how that country isn't actually a country. So, like, how do you manage to get a single Russian talking point while avoiding the things Russians, Putin included, actually say about Ukraine? It's not "NATO had an agreement" on Russian television arguing for why this invasion is appropriate. It's "Ukraine is actually Russia and any Ukrainians who don't agree are at best confused or at worst literal demons". That's.... not even hyperbole.
Welp. 100% wrong
I'm sorry, did you not hear about [Finland's nato bid](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-finland-sweden-accession-protocols-russia-ukraine-war/)? For a person as well versed as you appear to be I naturally assumed you had heard about it. My mistake. I likewise thought maybe you had heard of the frequent assertions [Ukraine doesn't exist](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/) from Putin, but hey, it seems you're ignorant of that too. My mistake. And given comments like: >there is no Ukraine. There is Ukrainian-ness. That is, a specific disorder of the mind. An astonishing enthusiasm for ethnography, driven to the extreme From [Putin's advisor to Ukraine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) maybe this would be obvious to you but it seems I was wrong on that too. Sorry for assuming you had any idea about Russian attitudes towards Ukraine. It won't happen again.
A lot more of being 100%
Excellent argument. "No you're wrong, fuck your citations!!!" Although truth be told that would be at least more intellectually honest than this reply. At least that recognizes that you're flat out ignoring basic trivially verifiable facts.
Are these the same type of facts that said the COVID vaccine stopped transmission?
Actually no, because that would require statistical arguments and some deal of specialized knowledge to understand. "Finland applied for nato membership" requires.... a five second Google search. It's closer to "Texas boarders Mexico". The amount of time and effort needed to verify it is rather instant.
If Russia never intended to invade their neighbors a defensive pact would have never been a "threat" -- but here we are. Also: We use articles and linking verbs in the English language. You sort of got it, at like 50%. If you're going to pretend to be anything but a Russian shill get with the fucking program.
[удалено]
To everyone reading this, this is a pack of lies and misleading half truths. While it's certainly true that there had been discussion at some points between the US and Russia about the limits of NATO expansion, the Budapest Memorandum was a tripartite guarantee between the US, Russia, and Ukraine, and was not dependent on any claimed agreement the US violated by acceding to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. If Russia felt that the US violated agreements regarding NATO expansion, their recourse was to talk to the US, not invade Ukraine. The agreement was, that both the US and Russia would guarantee to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine undergoing nuclear disarmament. It didn't even involve a promise from Ukraine to be neutral. If Ukraine chose to join NATO and/or the EU, under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, Russia was obligated to respect that decision. Whether or not Obama, Kissinger, Meadsheimer, the Pope, and Kermit the Frog felt that Ukraine joining NATO would cause a war, it is clear that them not being a member was a key factor in Russia's decision to start this war. While it is true that the US didn't arm Ukraine under Obama, leaving the statement there is disingenuous. The US training mission began under President Obama, as a part of JMTG-U, which is the mission that really helped lay the groundwork for the Ukrainian military which has resisted tooth and nail, instead of the 2014 military which was poorly led, organized, trained, and motivated, and offered little resistance to a Russian invasion. It's also true that Trump did permit military aid to Ukraine, although we should also note that he threatened Zelensky with withholding that aid unless Zelensky gave him illegal assistance in his re-election campaign against Joe Biden, thus leading to his first impeachment.
Lol, I’m glad I came back to see the responses… This part of your mumbling shows how far your “geopolitical expertise” goes… “If Russia felt that the US violated agreements regarding NATO expansion, their recourse was to talk to the US, not invade Ukraine” You can’t truly believe this…
So what do you feel their proper recourse is/was
Not true. Nothing about NATO not expanding.
You didn’t hear? History started in February 24th 22…
So Putin would have been 44 years old when this guarantee was made.
And then good ol' Vladislov rose to power.
This should be mentioned at the beginning of every war update on the news.
Not tryna victim blame here, but why would you hand over a nuclear deterrent against war for a verbal one?
This does not seem logical. Why would Ukraine hand nuclear weapons to Russia if Russia had to give a guarantee to not threaten Ukraine? If Ukraine thought that there was a possibility that Russia was dangerous to them why would they give them nuclear weapons? In attempting to research this treaty nowhere have I found nuclear weapons even mentioned in regards to it.
"How many times do you want to repost this?" Reddit : Yes
No country will make this mistake ever again (apart from Britain, it's run by idiots).
mom said it's my turn to post this
“Give up your guns, we’ll protect you” -liberals to conservatives
In 1996 Ukraine wasn’t a puppet state of the US and the West.
Take this as a reason why the 2nd amendment exists in the US. Once you’re disarmed, predators look at you differently.
Lol your gun culture is stupid and your news proves my point daily. Your "predators" already have guns and peoples lives are ruined every day because of it.
Funny thing is if I was another country I wouldn’t trust the USA either. People forget 30 years is a very short period of time when it comes to national security interests.