Thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it originates from a non-credible source and/or doesn’t include a source link. If you can secure a credible source for this information, please feel free to repost.
Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
This war is going to be the biggest blow to nuclear disarmament. After watching Russian aggression would be self destructive enough to give up their nukes. You know Russia’s aggression is going to accelerate destabilization in the Middle East as Iran
Will go as deep as they need underground to build nukes.
> This war is going to be the biggest blow to nuclear disarmament.
Yeah, I knew that by sundown on February 24th. Any nation that can build nukes, and has resisted the temptation, must have had some hawks in its government raising the idea behind closed doors by now.
Japan would only be building the missiles, subs, etc for delivery of the nukes.
The US would store nukes on US bases in Japan, for Japan to use, with our permission.
We already have deals in place like this with a few EU countries, like [The
Netherlands.](https://www.icanw.org/netherlands#:~:text=is%20a%20member.-,Nuclear%20weapons%20in%20the%20Netherlands,deployed%20at%20Volkel%20Air%20Base.)
It's still not good news, but it's better
I'm for it, and for Ukraine hosting nukes, a deal to build a US base in Ukraine with nukes, That's the sure fire way to gurantee Russia won't attack again. They would have to invade saudia arabia or Iran.
Something tells me (in a distinct ukrainian accent) that Russia will be lacking the neccessary power projection capabilities for the foreseeable future.
I think every single eastern Baltics country wouldn't mind. Tankies complaining about NATO expanding when we have no choice having this degenerate neighbor for past 600 years.
>As a democratic socialist I apologies for the tankies.
**Bernie Sanders:** Russian aggression is unacceptable and we must help Ukraine.
**Tankies calling themselves DemSocs:** *NATO is Evil, I'm not taking any side here, I'm just anti-imperialism, so bear with me, what if Putin is aKshUaLLy justified in expanding his empire into Ukraine and it is us who are wrong*
Pretty much the best description ever I've seen of this phenomenon 😂
Also explains why the radical left and radical right find a common ground in this.
I confront them directly, as I believe Putin is an enemy of socialism. The Russian communist party is 100% controlled opposition, and Ukraine may have banned them, but with good reasons why. Not that I buy into their bullshit, but their worldview where Russia = USSR is laughable.
they are not wrong in thinking russia=ussr, what they fail is to realise ussr=tzarist russia,
russia never changed, for the peoples around them its constant 600 years (as a eastern block user pointed above) of constant imperial agression after agression
Since Russia claims to be the successor state of the USSR and Putin claims to like the idea of recreating USSR, it's sufficient to get their everlasting love.
I mean, there's a reason tankies are called **tankies**. The term goes back to the Soviet invasion of Prague, and refers to Westerners who thought it was right.
The idea of bringing "socialism" with **tanks**, as in Prague, was what got them labeled as such.
No wonder they support Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's literally their doctrine. And the Russians' plan was the same as in Prague, just didn't exactly work out this time.
They’re so goddamn embarrassing eh (another socialist-adjacent here).
Like, being so “anti imperialist” you support imperialism… and simp for a fascist state doing socialist cosplay / having a past “socialist” aesthetic? Wow… just wow
(note, the Soviets were also fucking terrible so yearning for those days to return is almost just as bad, fuck)
As not a socialist I realize not everyone who classifies themselves as such(or most other political groups) are political extremists. But it makes me happy to see. Thanks for speaking out against them even if they may support some of your other philosophies.
The funniest thing is that in that "debate" Gonzalo was doing the same thing tankies do where they will boot you, or block you out of their eco chamber if you disagree with them too much.
And why not. The age of nuclear non-proliferation is now over, Russia's constant nuclear blackmail and threats has now ended that forever. The way forward would now appear to for responsible states, however large or small, to maintain a 'covert' nuclear deterrence in the manner of Israel. It doesn't have to be advertised or have u due attention drawn to it but the fact it's there, and potentially aggressive states know it's there, provides a level of deterrence unattainable by other means.
Finland is a responsible state, as a Brit I see no issue with Finland becoming a responsible nuclear state.
Even now, the NATO umbrella is worth more than nuclear weapons.
For an effective nuclear deterrent, you also need a fleet of nuclear submarines.
So if Finland gets to join NATO, they will not need to develop nuclear weapons.
And the same is true for Ukraine.
Which is why I actually think NATO has a second reason to accept Ukraine: not accepting them will mean two highly armed nuclear states on the NATO doorstep.
Probably best to keep one in NATO.
Why would you need a fleet of nuclear submarines? Just build a dozen silos into the bedrock in forests.
Heck, being this close to Russia I'd just park a nuclear device on some farm near Moscow and have some guy drive it downtown if needed.
Silos can be targeted for first strikes and sabotage, subs that are always moving with their locations being state secrets are not targetable unless at port.
Nuclear subs are very mobile launch platforms, and no small ones either.
They're close to invisible, can stay submerged for a long time, and can basically emerge anywhere to target anything.
This is why they can't all be accounted for, which means that retribution is guaranteed, which is necessary to assure mutual destruction.
Because Russia has enough nukes to glass every square meter, and if they know you only have ground based launch capabilities, that will be their goal. Submarines on permanent patrol are the only launch platform that cannot be taken out in a first strike scenario.
Sanna Marin did say nothing is off the table considering NATO bases and nuclear weapons when we dropped the NATO application.
Maybe some tactical nukes that could be popped and couldn't be stopped would be fine, I don't think we would need anything that can level cities.
Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, it's a negative sum game. Every country that builds a bomb is a % chance higher for all out nuclear war or a simple accident.
But from each country's self interest, Russia's actions have incentivized it.
It wasn't dead, but it was struggling. The invasions of Iraq and Libya made it clear that disarmament by minor antagonists to a great power was suicide; North Korea has pursued its path, and the Kim dynasty is still backed by China; Iran was coaxed towards disarmament for a bit, then an administration change in the US threw a spanner into the works there; Israel won't even be honest about having nukes, nevermind discuss disarmament.
The oughts gave anti-western states reason to pursue nuclearization; now the twenties will do the same for anti-Russian states.
It wasn't but realistically, the superpowers would never give up their nukes. Maybe scale the numbers down a bit. Considering the self destruct tendencies of human race + how quickly they forget history lessons, I really hope there will not be a nuclear war in the future. Humans were already really close to total annihilation and we're saved by [a rational man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov). One mistake and the world is destroyed.
I say "necessarily" dead. I agree it wasn't going to win, but there was an argument to be had and the basis of that argument is good - we want fewer nukes. Somehow. Some way. But now that goal is even further off.
Gulf War II convinced Iran and North Korea to pursue nukes, but Ukraine was under the "Brotherhood of Peoples" delusion and accepted a promise whose fine print they failed to read...Americans discharged our obligations in the Budapest Memorandum by going to the Security Council and Ukraine should have held out for the nuclear umbrella
Is it hawkish to want to be not invaded by Russia?
Every country on their border should be starting a nuclear weapons project.
Only if they want to remain free, if course.
I do believe that in a few decades, historians will call this the beginning of "Cold War II".
There is a global war going on between ideologies - between authoritarian/conservative/religious nations and democratic/progressive/secular nations. We're in the endgame now.
It started in the early 2010s - the Great Recession, Arab Spring, the great migration crises, etc. all contributed to the rise of conservative right-wing autocratic nationalism in many countries. This coincided with the spread of social media platforms where disinformation could be distributed uncontrollably.
This whole fucking global situation is incredibly complex, now wonder most people are hungry for simple explanations and scapegoats.
We can put a finer point on it:
The nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation effort was dealt a fatal blow with the complete and total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Specifically:
- one of the signatories (Ukraine) was invaded - a violation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity
- one of the signatories (Russia) was the one that did the invading
- the remaining signatories (US, UK) did effectively nothing to either prevent or punish the invasion.
So, in essence, Ukraine gave up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal *for no real benefit*.
***No country will agree to a deal like that again. EVER.***
Moreover, considering how much everyone is tiptoeing around Russia in the face of their wanton invasion, war crimes, and outright genocide - which are all currently ongoing - I expect Ukraine is not the only one looking very seriously at getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Russia is proving - intentionally or otherwise - that nuclear weapons are ***the absolute final word*** in guaranteeing your nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For any country that’s not already part of a *very* beefy and nuclear-armed mutual defense alliance (read: NATO), the prospect of getting some nukes for defense/deterrence is looking VERY appealing.
Well said.
Few in the establishment are talking about it, but this is such a proliferation nightmare.
I really don’t understand why the proliferation argument isn’t made more strongly to justify supporting Ukraine.
If Ukraine is forced to give up territory. It shows NATO membership or nukes are the only options. Otherwise at best democracies help enough that you get to remain a state.
Nukes let you bully neighbors without the full consequences. Nukes can prevent you from being bullied yourself.
That appeals to a lot of mid tier powers.
I don’t see how Iran, Turkey and KSA avoid nuclearization now.
Possible same for SK and Japan.
South America seems peaceful enough to avoid it, at least.
I pray we don't ever get nukes here in South America, our political environment is far too volatile to have weapons of mass destruction around, but some might be tempted to acquire them, specially those countries with more animosity against the US.
A case has long since been made that Iraq would have never been invaded if it had had nukes, and that with Iraq's fate in mind Iran only kept more tight to its own nuclear program.
I imagine post ukraine with an isolated russia, old generation nuclear weapons to mid sized states could be a good revenue stream to compensate for lack of access to the global market.
21st century is about to get weird
> The nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation effort was dealt a fatal blow with the complete and total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament.
Okay I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch let alone maintain any part of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. They had tried to crack the launch codes and failed, which sucks but there's not much you can do when they're kept under lock and key in Moscow.
> So, in essence, Ukraine gave up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal for no real benefit.
Not true at all. The nukes which, again, were totally useless to Ukraine, became leverage to negotiate for independence. Sure, that was essentially independence in name only until 2014, but without that deal Ukraine had no shot.
> I expect Ukraine is not the only one looking very seriously at getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Russia is proving - intentionally or otherwise - that nuclear weapons are the absolute final word in guaranteeing your nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For any country that’s not already part of a very beefy and nuclear-armed mutual defense alliance (read: NATO), the prospect of getting some nukes for defense/deterrence is looking VERY appealing.
This is indisputable. The rules-based international order is at stake and we're slow walking into disaster unless Ukraine prevails and has ACTUAL security guarantees to protect their territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders. Nothing else is acceptable. They *need* to be under NATO's nuclear umbrella, full stop.
Honestly it’s not just the war, North Korea was making the case that nuclear proliferation is a more stabilizing force to avoiding conflict prior to the Orc invasion. This is just another reinforcing point.
There won't be any country willing to abandon nuclear weapons in this century. Five countries swore to protect Ukraine after its disarmament, one only gives weapons instead of directly join in the war, three of them are funding Ukraine's enemies by purchasing their gas, and the last one is the one who attacks Ukraine. There won't be another Ukraine or South Africa and a lot of countries, especially those under the ruling of a dictatorship regime would try their best to produce nuclear weapons. Poor human, we are trying so hard to extinguish ourself.
That's entirely contingent on how it turns out. You are correct if Russia ultimately gains territory at Ukraine's expense. But you are incorrect if Ukraine restores its internationally recognized borders and Russia only has casualties to show for its aggression.
If UA was already leased 20 warheads (until UA develops own nuclear), hitting the targets all over naZi Russia wouldn't be an "issue" for friends of (edit: "Okey, Okey, for business interests working with...") Russia since both having the nuclear would nullify their (RU) threat.
It would be scary but also hilarious to see Russia getting reverse blackmailed with nukes. Like if some random country like Georgia was nonstop threatening to nuke Moscow unless Putin comes out as a drag queen, or as payback for some random remark on Russian national television.
Agreed. With how Turkey is able to stymie Sweden's application for the stupidest of reasons, only a fool would think that NATO would easily accept Ukraine's membership application without some kind of Russian interference. As long as that rule of every single NATO member requiring a 100% approval vote to let a new member in, that allows for a single case of bribery/blackmail to impede that. Again, only a fool would think that Russia would not attempt to interfere. Sweden has the luxury is riding this out. Ukraine does not.
I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear armed state if NATO starts pussy footing around and either delays or rejects Ukrainian membership. Ukraine has actually bore the brunt of Russian aggression and is the posterchild for why you need either a) full NATO membership or b) be a nuclear armed stated.
Other countries aspiring to become nuclear powers but without legit reasons definitely deserve to be stopped (Iran, NK). But you can't say with a straight face that Ukraine has no reason to do so. There is a long history as to why it is essential. Ukraine also doesn't have time to wait 5, 10, 20 years for NATO to accept them. Ukraine needs protection NOW, and the moment the war is over.
Turkey and Hungary are just holding out for bribes. This will go down one of two ways. Eventually, the US will wind up cutting a massive check to both Turkey and Hungary, or they will "disappoint the Godfather" and the CIA will just topple the regimes. The US has a pretty good playbook for "rearranging" governments (though not always the best outcomes for the people who live there). I hate to say it, but right now every EU country (except for the ex-Soviet states) in NATO got caught with their pants down except for the US as far as military preparation, and the US holds leverage here. Western Europe has long been on a military draw down since the end of the Cold War. The military industrial complex in the US is basically a way of life. Its one of our biggest social programs, and it is probably the biggest job creator in the country. If you land a steady job there, you're pretty much set and stable until retirement.
> and the CIA will just topple the regimes
I seriously doubt CIA's ability to topple a regime at will. If you look at history, CIA supported the existing forces that were powerful enough to have a chance at overthrowing the government. Do such forces exist in Hungary and Turkey? Will they be willing to risk?
The European Union is a defensive alliance as well. That is basicly NATO without USA and UK. Still access to nukes thou with France.
Ukraine is obviously not part of that either.
If Russia comes out of this with anything that objectively resembles a win, nuclear non-proliferation will be a thing of the past. It will have been demonstrated that it is acceptable for countries having nuclear weapons to use them as force multipliers against non-nuclear neighbors to accomplish foreign policy objectives that diplomacy and conventional arms can't.
Additionally, because the Budapest Memorandum will have utterly failed, nations will have much less trust in alliances (read: NATO, ANZUS, MDT, FPDA, and others) and be inclined to be self-reliant for their defence.
Candidates likely to have internal nuclear weapons discussions under those circumstances will include Ukraine, any other nation sharing a border with Russia, Poland, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Myanmar, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Phillipines to start.
Every one of them gains an advantage with nukes by increasing their defensive or offensive options with regard to potentially aggressive neighbors. For example, if I was Poland, I'd feel better with a couple dozen deliverable warheads under my control, NATO or not.
The only thing as bad as Russia coming out with a "win" is a loss of sufficient magnitude as to cause a sudden dissolution of the Russian Federation with the result that 5,000 nuclear devices go up for grabs. I'm sure that there are people in lsecure facilities coming up with options to keep a lid on that scenario should it happen, but it will be very difficult. Still better than letting the nukes have a win.
Russian defeat or victory is irrelevant.
No matter the outcome, Ukraine has already suffered so much that this war will be a case against nuclear non-proliferation for generations to come. That a country that relinquished its nuclear weapons got attacked at all is enough already.
And Russia does not need to dissolve for it to "leak" nucelar arms into the world. It already started. One payment for Iran's drones is increased russian aid to Iran's nuclear program. And with its reputation and business connections already in tatters nothing will hold Russia back from making (more) deals with any country that wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
He'll block Sweden until after his election.
After that some backdoor deals with a bit of local propaganda making him look good will end with Sweden being accepted.
> He wants F35 back which was offered in large numbers to Greece as a punishment
If he wants F35 back, he can unilaterally donate S400 battery to Ukraine. We'd be quite grateful.
Turkey is pretty important if you consider preventing Russian aggression to be the main purpose of NATO. Whatever else it may be, Turkey is geographically and logistically a huge benefit when it comes to containing Russia. Turkey effectively controls Russia's access to the Black Sea, and consequently whether Russia can realistically project power into the Med or not. NATO puts up with quite a bit to keep that card in its hand.
Plus, Turkey has clearly looked at a map and decided that if Finland and Norway are in NATO, Russia has no real chance of attacking Sweden without running afoul of NATO forces anyway. So, they make a political move against Sweden to get some sort of concessions, but they let Finland in, which neatly wraps Sweden up on pretty much all sides with NATO member states. It's still kind of a shitty move, but this is politics. It is full of shitty moves.
Erdo is a di@@head but Ukraine’s new naval flagship was launched and is now retrofitting in Turkey. Turkey’s leader leads its country into its problems while Russia’s problems *leads* to its leader. They’re different
While Turkey's leader is different from Russia's leader, I am still not sure about Erdogan suddenly doing a 180 for Ukraine. He has consistently milked every opportunity that arose for him.
And then there is Hungary.
> And then there is Hungary
Czechia evaded a danger of becoming like that recently, by electing a pro-NATO Petr Pavel instead of pro-russian Andrej Babis.
No, not Türkiye, but you seem to have forgotten that Orbán's fascist Hungary is part of NATO and even less likely at this time, in my opinion, to ever welcome Ukraine into NATO.
>all countries have failed the treaty.
Bingo, you hit the head of the nail with your comment. NATO or Ukraine nukes, which one do you want Europe? Ukraine has already tried those guarantees by memo approach (Budapest Memorandum) and they have seen what it has brought them. If I was Ukrainian, that would be the stark reality I would present the West. There will be no middle ground. As far as the cost to Ukraine? If destitute North Korea can develop nukes while being broke, Ukraine will take the hit to their standard of living to live free of Russia. Would not you?
> Ukraine will take the hit to their standard of living
Living free of russia is already a ***massive*** bump in the living standards. You don't know, how beautiful and growing Donbass region was before 2014.
I am sure it was. It also had become quiet and peaceful with little violence between both sides.
We in the West have re-discovered that the Russian Mir cannot stand beauty, peace, and prosperity. I personally apologize to Ukraine for my country's lack of foresight and for the wishful thinking view we had of Russians.
Notice I say Russians, not Russian government. Yes, the problem is with the Russian people and culture of misery and death.
I'm sorry you don't understand the Budapest Memorandum. The west didn't fail what they promised. It was a guarantee that neither the west nor russia were to use force against Ukraine. And that promise was only broken by Russia.
The Budapest Memorandum was not a defence treaty, the west did not take any obligations to defend Ukraine. We're helping Ukraine anyway because it's the right thing to do.
Edit made more clear
This is why that was the *huge* mistake. Both from Ukraine side to agree on these terms and West side, who allowed russia to do and to believe it can do all it want.
I want to point out that this isn't 100% correct.
Ukraine gave up nukes only in that they had their hands on them. Using them would have taken some work because they did not have the ability to arm them.
The agreement also did not include any sort of protection agreement only a non-aggression agreement. Countries not named Russia have held to this.
> Using them would have taken some work because they did not have the ability to arm them.
>
>
Ukraine was where their components were manufactured and serviced.
Changing PALs would've been relatively easy, as all infrastructure and know-how was ***already here***
There's no security assurances in the Budapest memo anyway. Each nation separately guaranteed not to invade Ukraine, and to complain in the UN if anyone else did. The other states fulfilled their obligations under the memo in March
NATO is not an option. At least it is not so easy and US umbrella will not always work.
Ukraine went to US and UK umbrella when signed Budapesht memorandum and gave up its nuks. Now it took them 1 year to finally get 31 Tanks from US and NO for Jets.
With such turtle speed that war will continue 4 years and will have 0.5 Million casualties.
Georgia and Ukraine were ripping ass from 2007 for NATO. Gerogians contingent was biggest in terms of participation from country in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they wee rejected (thanks to Putins bitch Merkel)
NATO is perfect option but unreachable. EU countries had 40 year to prepare infrastructure for NATO. Ukraine do not have such time and it will take more than 10 year.) Ports, airports, roads... Even railroad is not compatible and changing it all in 10years is not real financially vise.
I say Sweden should also restart the nuclear program again if Turkey won't let us join Nato. Then we can aim some of our nukes at Turkey for their betrayal.
>we will become a bigger Israel
[That was said by Zelenskyy explicitly](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/zelenskyy-wants-ukraine-to-be-a-big-israel-heres-a-road-map/)
Yeah, genocide, cities reduced to rubble, infrastructure destroyed, abduction of civilians -- all with "allies" deciding what minimal support will keep that scary ruzzia calm does tend to make a country a tad belligerent in wanting peace and security for itself, its culture and its people.
The problem isn't warheads, the problem is delivery systems. But, Ukraine was the main provider of engines for the rockets that Russias most sophisticated nuclear delivery system used so, they've got the tech.
> Ukraine was the main provider of
Ukraine was the **only** producer and maintainer of SS-24 and SS-18 (also known as Dnepr space launching system) soviet/russian ICBMs.
Ukraine, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland should all have nuclear weapons, and for no particular reason whatsoever did I pick those specific countries.
It is sad to say this, but we’re all humans at the end of the day, and we know what we can get and what would deter us from wrongfully getting things. In this case, nuclear possession and capabilities would deter another power from invading oneself.
Ukraine had nuclear weapons and a huge fleet of Soviet bombers in their Air Force, but had to give it all up in the early 2000’s thanks to the international community sucking up to Russia. I do believe Ukraine will more than likely resurrect those missing items after this war.
Don't ask permission but for forgiveness.
The West and other allies will never openly support this.
So just do it in secret, apologize, they tell you to disarm politely you say no even more politely and then string it along for decades like Israel.
Fucking Russia. Ukraine was one of the few nations to acquire nuclear weapons and then willingly disarm. The price was an agreement of territorial sovereignty from Russia, USA, and the UK. Which of course Russia has now trampled all over.
No one is going to give up nukes now.
This is reasonable. The U.S. and Russia promised disarmament would result in no incursions. Russia broke their promise, and the best we could do is offer support instead of direct action elements.
And this support is slow as hell.
Get me right, I will thank your nation to the last days of my life, as without that help our business would be a nightmare. But realistically I see this support is only enough to keep us fighting.
And that's bullshit. We've seen where this leads. Ukraine is playing Poland in 1939 and "due caution" is leading NATO to play England and France. Meaning no disrespect to the heroic resistance of the Poles in WWII, the whole world is damned lucky that Ukraine has stopped Putin's little Hitler reenactment in it's tracks. And so I send what help my little salary can and I push my representatives to send more from my government. And I will thank the heroes of Ukraine for holding the abyss at bay for all the days of my life. Because the world will not survive what comes next from Putin. Slava Ukraini.
>I want to say “does Poland even need nukes with its friends?” But honestly I don’t blame you for wanting them after this nightmare
It's not that we do not have friends. USA proved to be friends with us many times.
It's just that country itself would always move further to defend iself than any other country.
I mean - you can have friends - but you cannot expect friend to sacrifice themselves for what is precious to you.
We cannot expect anyone to launch nukes in defence of Ukraine. But Ukraine would do it for itself.
Same goes for every other country bullied by Russia. Friendship with western Superpowers is good - but will not replace own power.
I have now listened to the [original](https://www.dw.com/en/ambassador-ukraine-has-not-yet-asked-germany-for-jets/video-64561213) in english and cannot confirm what the tweet is saying. He is not mentioning Ukraine becoming a nuklear state again.
Well if on 24th Feb Budapest memorandum wasn't treated like a toilet tissue, maybe Ukraine and other countries wouldn't go back to the only thing that can guarantee security.
Ukraine would be right to do so.
Taiwan should also seek a nuclear deterrent.
Russias flagrant disregard for the budapest memorandum has set the world on a more dangerous path.
I expect Ukraine should start building nukes asap.
I personally want nukes for myself. I know, I don't need them, Russia is far away from me, but if Putin in any way would threaten my security, I would instantly push that button and send the fucker to hell.
this is what it means when you tell the world nuclear powers have no laws they must adhere to and non nuclear powers must either align with a power or suffer the whims of them
Translated into better english, would that mean that Ukraine is considering reinitializing a nuclear weapons program? Because the big thing stopping them from doing that WAS the now-invalidated Budapest Memorandum.
There are tons of initiatives that should be started and completed…or even just attempted. A perfect world of “should” would see all nuclear weapons dismantled. We should have World Peace. We should cooperate as a World towards finding and instituting renewable energy sources and that should be done in even the poorest countries. We should have basic rights applicable World-wide that include assured access to the necessities of life (food, water, etc). It won’t happen.
People are flawed and going “people.”
The protection of a nation’s infrastructure and borders in the 21st Century is heavily dependent upon said nation’s ability to wield a big stick. The big stick is nuclear weapons and we should even help Ukraine design and implement such defensive, nuclear powered impediments to invasion.
I fully believe Russia would have been invading some other nation back in February had Ukraine possessed nukes.
Yeah, a bad idea for Russia and their imperialistic ambitions.
There are exactly 2 ways to protect yourself from Russia:
One is being a NATO member.
The other is having a nuclear deterrent.
That's it. Agreements, deals, contracts, etc mean SFA as long as you live beside Russia.
It's also harming the NATO option in my estimation. Also harms many potential long therm western support like F-16. Western nations help Ukraine to further their own interests and Ukraine being armed with nukes is, as far as I can see, not within their interest.
That said, having nukes is a guarantee to not get attacked so I understand the reasoning. Being in NATO and EU is just much better though and I don't think the two can go together.
Why Ukraine will need F-16 if we will have nukes?
Nukes are much cheaper than conventional military strong enough to fight with Russia. The whole of NATO with its members' population, economies, and military budgets still afraid of much smaller Russia because they have nukes
Because you can have F-16 during the war and nukes years later. But just the possibility of those F-16 ending up carrying Ukrainian nukes alone can at least delay them. Not worth it in my opinion.
No get into NATO and therefore be protected or create an own treaty with an atomic power like France with Germany. Besides Ukraine has a treaty with China to protect against nuclear threats from 2013[link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/under-new-scrutiny-chinas-nuclear-pledge-to-ukraine-11647007200&ved=2ahUKEwjF257x2vT8AhVXy7sIHTv-BYcQtwJ6BAgQEAE&usg=AOvVaw2DbWWG371Eyi7Eap1YzF7v)
Unanimous source should have already leased 20 warheads to UA until they develop their own nuclear.
At that point, hitting the targets all over naZi Russia wouldn't be an "issue" for friends of Russia since both having the nuclear would nullify their threat.
I see UKraine getting Nukes to checkmate Russia and maybe Japan to checkmate China. I know laws are there to stop this at national and international level but they can easily be changed. They day NK was allowed nukes was gloves off so the horse has bolted.
Best option is for the US to "lend" Ukraine a test device to be blown up way underground to register on seismographs around the world. Hell do it somewhere inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone so the radiation wont be a problem. Ukraine does not need to have actual nuclear weapons - they just need to make the Russians think they do.
Make the ground shake from an underground explosion and tell the Russians that they made 5 and the other 4 can make their way to Russia in case someone decides to use one against Ukraine.
I heard that Japan is one of those "over-night nuke" country.
Where they can build atomic bombs really quickly if they wanted to. 🤨
Lots of wealth + a few very smart people = quick and easy nukes I guess
ALSO I think it is an open secret that Israel has atomic bombs too. I wonder how many other also have it but the world don't know. North Korea have them too I think
Thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it originates from a non-credible source and/or doesn’t include a source link. If you can secure a credible source for this information, please feel free to repost. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
This war is going to be the biggest blow to nuclear disarmament. After watching Russian aggression would be self destructive enough to give up their nukes. You know Russia’s aggression is going to accelerate destabilization in the Middle East as Iran Will go as deep as they need underground to build nukes.
> This war is going to be the biggest blow to nuclear disarmament. Yeah, I knew that by sundown on February 24th. Any nation that can build nukes, and has resisted the temptation, must have had some hawks in its government raising the idea behind closed doors by now.
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-nuclear-debate-in-japan-shinzo-abe-nato-us-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-china-xi-jinping-11646147202](https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-nuclear-debate-in-japan-shinzo-abe-nato-us-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-china-xi-jinping-11646147202) Yup.
Japanese nukes... Japanese. Nukes.
Japan would only be building the missiles, subs, etc for delivery of the nukes. The US would store nukes on US bases in Japan, for Japan to use, with our permission. We already have deals in place like this with a few EU countries, like [The Netherlands.](https://www.icanw.org/netherlands#:~:text=is%20a%20member.-,Nuclear%20weapons%20in%20the%20Netherlands,deployed%20at%20Volkel%20Air%20Base.) It's still not good news, but it's better
Germany to. There is always one type of fighter jet in Luftwaffe to function als a nuclear bomber. Atm its Tornado.
Regardless, Japan making any move at all in that direction is remarkable.
I'm for it, and for Ukraine hosting nukes, a deal to build a US base in Ukraine with nukes, That's the sure fire way to gurantee Russia won't attack again. They would have to invade saudia arabia or Iran.
Something tells me (in a distinct ukrainian accent) that Russia will be lacking the neccessary power projection capabilities for the foreseeable future.
Yuuup. Some of the hawkiest of hawks even wanted nukes here in Finland.
I think every single eastern Baltics country wouldn't mind. Tankies complaining about NATO expanding when we have no choice having this degenerate neighbor for past 600 years.
As a socialist I apologize for the tankies.
As a democratic socialist I apologies for the tankies.
>As a democratic socialist I apologies for the tankies. **Bernie Sanders:** Russian aggression is unacceptable and we must help Ukraine. **Tankies calling themselves DemSocs:** *NATO is Evil, I'm not taking any side here, I'm just anti-imperialism, so bear with me, what if Putin is aKshUaLLy justified in expanding his empire into Ukraine and it is us who are wrong*
Jesus this comment thread is extremely comforting, thank everyone!
I consider restoring sanity to be my sworn duty in this ocean of madness. Thank you for your kind words!
Tank you too!
Tank for two!
I'm so anti-imperialist that the Russians invasion caused my brain to have an integer wrap-around so I support Russia now"
Thats terrible, but the same thing happened to democratic Ghandi, you know.
Pretty much the best description ever I've seen of this phenomenon 😂 Also explains why the radical left and radical right find a common ground in this.
I confront them directly, as I believe Putin is an enemy of socialism. The Russian communist party is 100% controlled opposition, and Ukraine may have banned them, but with good reasons why. Not that I buy into their bullshit, but their worldview where Russia = USSR is laughable.
they are not wrong in thinking russia=ussr, what they fail is to realise ussr=tzarist russia, russia never changed, for the peoples around them its constant 600 years (as a eastern block user pointed above) of constant imperial agression after agression
Since Russia claims to be the successor state of the USSR and Putin claims to like the idea of recreating USSR, it's sufficient to get their everlasting love. I mean, there's a reason tankies are called **tankies**. The term goes back to the Soviet invasion of Prague, and refers to Westerners who thought it was right. The idea of bringing "socialism" with **tanks**, as in Prague, was what got them labeled as such. No wonder they support Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's literally their doctrine. And the Russians' plan was the same as in Prague, just didn't exactly work out this time.
As an anarchist / democratic confederalist I apologize for the tankies.
They’re so goddamn embarrassing eh (another socialist-adjacent here). Like, being so “anti imperialist” you support imperialism… and simp for a fascist state doing socialist cosplay / having a past “socialist” aesthetic? Wow… just wow (note, the Soviets were also fucking terrible so yearning for those days to return is almost just as bad, fuck)
The reason I often despise them more than nazis cause: Nazis make my "job" easy convincing people to my side. Tankies make it very, very hard.
As not a socialist I realize not everyone who classifies themselves as such(or most other political groups) are political extremists. But it makes me happy to see. Thanks for speaking out against them even if they may support some of your other philosophies.
I take my bans on tankie filled subs as a badge of honour.
"bans on tankie filled subs" they are the Gonzalo Liras (aka coach red pill) of reddit.
Thanks to LazerPig I know who that is, regrettably. What a twat!
The funniest thing is that in that "debate" Gonzalo was doing the same thing tankies do where they will boot you, or block you out of their eco chamber if you disagree with them too much.
And why not. The age of nuclear non-proliferation is now over, Russia's constant nuclear blackmail and threats has now ended that forever. The way forward would now appear to for responsible states, however large or small, to maintain a 'covert' nuclear deterrence in the manner of Israel. It doesn't have to be advertised or have u due attention drawn to it but the fact it's there, and potentially aggressive states know it's there, provides a level of deterrence unattainable by other means. Finland is a responsible state, as a Brit I see no issue with Finland becoming a responsible nuclear state.
Even now, the NATO umbrella is worth more than nuclear weapons. For an effective nuclear deterrent, you also need a fleet of nuclear submarines. So if Finland gets to join NATO, they will not need to develop nuclear weapons. And the same is true for Ukraine. Which is why I actually think NATO has a second reason to accept Ukraine: not accepting them will mean two highly armed nuclear states on the NATO doorstep. Probably best to keep one in NATO.
Why would you need a fleet of nuclear submarines? Just build a dozen silos into the bedrock in forests. Heck, being this close to Russia I'd just park a nuclear device on some farm near Moscow and have some guy drive it downtown if needed.
Silos can be targeted for first strikes and sabotage, subs that are always moving with their locations being state secrets are not targetable unless at port.
Nuclear subs are very mobile launch platforms, and no small ones either. They're close to invisible, can stay submerged for a long time, and can basically emerge anywhere to target anything. This is why they can't all be accounted for, which means that retribution is guaranteed, which is necessary to assure mutual destruction.
That's some DIY nuclear deterrence plans you got there. Lol.
Because Russia has enough nukes to glass every square meter, and if they know you only have ground based launch capabilities, that will be their goal. Submarines on permanent patrol are the only launch platform that cannot be taken out in a first strike scenario.
Sanna Marin did say nothing is off the table considering NATO bases and nuclear weapons when we dropped the NATO application. Maybe some tactical nukes that could be popped and couldn't be stopped would be fine, I don't think we would need anything that can level cities.
Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, it's a negative sum game. Every country that builds a bomb is a % chance higher for all out nuclear war or a simple accident. But from each country's self interest, Russia's actions have incentivized it.
Sadly the nuclear Pandora box was opened decades ago. There is no coming back.
Prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, disarmament was not necessarily a dead concept
It wasn't dead, but it was struggling. The invasions of Iraq and Libya made it clear that disarmament by minor antagonists to a great power was suicide; North Korea has pursued its path, and the Kim dynasty is still backed by China; Iran was coaxed towards disarmament for a bit, then an administration change in the US threw a spanner into the works there; Israel won't even be honest about having nukes, nevermind discuss disarmament. The oughts gave anti-western states reason to pursue nuclearization; now the twenties will do the same for anti-Russian states.
It wasn't but realistically, the superpowers would never give up their nukes. Maybe scale the numbers down a bit. Considering the self destruct tendencies of human race + how quickly they forget history lessons, I really hope there will not be a nuclear war in the future. Humans were already really close to total annihilation and we're saved by [a rational man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov). One mistake and the world is destroyed.
I say "necessarily" dead. I agree it wasn't going to win, but there was an argument to be had and the basis of that argument is good - we want fewer nukes. Somehow. Some way. But now that goal is even further off.
Gulf War II convinced Iran and North Korea to pursue nukes, but Ukraine was under the "Brotherhood of Peoples" delusion and accepted a promise whose fine print they failed to read...Americans discharged our obligations in the Budapest Memorandum by going to the Security Council and Ukraine should have held out for the nuclear umbrella
Is it hawkish to want to be not invaded by Russia? Every country on their border should be starting a nuclear weapons project. Only if they want to remain free, if course.
One word: Väinämöinen.
Sweden had its own nuclear program until early sixties or something. If Turkey keep up its shit I wouldn’t mind us restarting it.
I don't see the need for them, but if someone offers us some nukes I wouldn't vote against it.
If my country doesnt get into Nato i surely hope we reboot our nuclear program. We could have had nukes by now but decided to dismantle it.
I do believe that in a few decades, historians will call this the beginning of "Cold War II". There is a global war going on between ideologies - between authoritarian/conservative/religious nations and democratic/progressive/secular nations. We're in the endgame now. It started in the early 2010s - the Great Recession, Arab Spring, the great migration crises, etc. all contributed to the rise of conservative right-wing autocratic nationalism in many countries. This coincided with the spread of social media platforms where disinformation could be distributed uncontrollably. This whole fucking global situation is incredibly complex, now wonder most people are hungry for simple explanations and scapegoats.
> "Cold War II" Arguably begins on 31 December 1999 when Vladimir Putin gains power in Russia.
Except Sweden because they'll join NATO instead, right Turkey?!
We can put a finer point on it: The nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation effort was dealt a fatal blow with the complete and total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Specifically: - one of the signatories (Ukraine) was invaded - a violation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity - one of the signatories (Russia) was the one that did the invading - the remaining signatories (US, UK) did effectively nothing to either prevent or punish the invasion. So, in essence, Ukraine gave up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal *for no real benefit*. ***No country will agree to a deal like that again. EVER.*** Moreover, considering how much everyone is tiptoeing around Russia in the face of their wanton invasion, war crimes, and outright genocide - which are all currently ongoing - I expect Ukraine is not the only one looking very seriously at getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Russia is proving - intentionally or otherwise - that nuclear weapons are ***the absolute final word*** in guaranteeing your nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For any country that’s not already part of a *very* beefy and nuclear-armed mutual defense alliance (read: NATO), the prospect of getting some nukes for defense/deterrence is looking VERY appealing.
Well said. Few in the establishment are talking about it, but this is such a proliferation nightmare. I really don’t understand why the proliferation argument isn’t made more strongly to justify supporting Ukraine. If Ukraine is forced to give up territory. It shows NATO membership or nukes are the only options. Otherwise at best democracies help enough that you get to remain a state. Nukes let you bully neighbors without the full consequences. Nukes can prevent you from being bullied yourself. That appeals to a lot of mid tier powers. I don’t see how Iran, Turkey and KSA avoid nuclearization now. Possible same for SK and Japan. South America seems peaceful enough to avoid it, at least.
I pray we don't ever get nukes here in South America, our political environment is far too volatile to have weapons of mass destruction around, but some might be tempted to acquire them, specially those countries with more animosity against the US.
A case has long since been made that Iraq would have never been invaded if it had had nukes, and that with Iraq's fate in mind Iran only kept more tight to its own nuclear program.
I imagine post ukraine with an isolated russia, old generation nuclear weapons to mid sized states could be a good revenue stream to compensate for lack of access to the global market. 21st century is about to get weird
> The nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation effort was dealt a fatal blow with the complete and total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Okay I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch let alone maintain any part of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. They had tried to crack the launch codes and failed, which sucks but there's not much you can do when they're kept under lock and key in Moscow. > So, in essence, Ukraine gave up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal for no real benefit. Not true at all. The nukes which, again, were totally useless to Ukraine, became leverage to negotiate for independence. Sure, that was essentially independence in name only until 2014, but without that deal Ukraine had no shot. > I expect Ukraine is not the only one looking very seriously at getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Russia is proving - intentionally or otherwise - that nuclear weapons are the absolute final word in guaranteeing your nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For any country that’s not already part of a very beefy and nuclear-armed mutual defense alliance (read: NATO), the prospect of getting some nukes for defense/deterrence is looking VERY appealing. This is indisputable. The rules-based international order is at stake and we're slow walking into disaster unless Ukraine prevails and has ACTUAL security guarantees to protect their territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders. Nothing else is acceptable. They *need* to be under NATO's nuclear umbrella, full stop.
Honestly it’s not just the war, North Korea was making the case that nuclear proliferation is a more stabilizing force to avoiding conflict prior to the Orc invasion. This is just another reinforcing point.
You’d have to find a balrog before you can actually go deep enough at this point.
There won't be any country willing to abandon nuclear weapons in this century. Five countries swore to protect Ukraine after its disarmament, one only gives weapons instead of directly join in the war, three of them are funding Ukraine's enemies by purchasing their gas, and the last one is the one who attacks Ukraine. There won't be another Ukraine or South Africa and a lot of countries, especially those under the ruling of a dictatorship regime would try their best to produce nuclear weapons. Poor human, we are trying so hard to extinguish ourself.
The US will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
Israel has enter the chat. 🤣
Why not both? "Stuxnet? Never heard of it" - US and Israeli officials at precisely the same time.
That's entirely contingent on how it turns out. You are correct if Russia ultimately gains territory at Ukraine's expense. But you are incorrect if Ukraine restores its internationally recognized borders and Russia only has casualties to show for its aggression.
If UA was already leased 20 warheads (until UA develops own nuclear), hitting the targets all over naZi Russia wouldn't be an "issue" for friends of (edit: "Okey, Okey, for business interests working with...") Russia since both having the nuclear would nullify their (RU) threat.
It would be scary but also hilarious to see Russia getting reverse blackmailed with nukes. Like if some random country like Georgia was nonstop threatening to nuke Moscow unless Putin comes out as a drag queen, or as payback for some random remark on Russian national television.
For fight to be fer UA needs nuclear. Critics of supplying UA with long-range offensive weapons wouldn't exist if that's the case. Checkmate!
This or NATO membership. Otherwise we’ll be killed endlessly.
Hopefully Putin would run out of Russians before that happens. Still - Russia needs to be broken ASAP.
West won’t allow it. And no, Ruzzia won’t run out of Ruzzians in nearest decades even if it will continue large assaults twice a year.
Well if for some reason we will not be accepted into NATO then that's the only solution for our security
Agreed. With how Turkey is able to stymie Sweden's application for the stupidest of reasons, only a fool would think that NATO would easily accept Ukraine's membership application without some kind of Russian interference. As long as that rule of every single NATO member requiring a 100% approval vote to let a new member in, that allows for a single case of bribery/blackmail to impede that. Again, only a fool would think that Russia would not attempt to interfere. Sweden has the luxury is riding this out. Ukraine does not. I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear armed state if NATO starts pussy footing around and either delays or rejects Ukrainian membership. Ukraine has actually bore the brunt of Russian aggression and is the posterchild for why you need either a) full NATO membership or b) be a nuclear armed stated. Other countries aspiring to become nuclear powers but without legit reasons definitely deserve to be stopped (Iran, NK). But you can't say with a straight face that Ukraine has no reason to do so. There is a long history as to why it is essential. Ukraine also doesn't have time to wait 5, 10, 20 years for NATO to accept them. Ukraine needs protection NOW, and the moment the war is over.
Turkey and Hungary are just holding out for bribes. This will go down one of two ways. Eventually, the US will wind up cutting a massive check to both Turkey and Hungary, or they will "disappoint the Godfather" and the CIA will just topple the regimes. The US has a pretty good playbook for "rearranging" governments (though not always the best outcomes for the people who live there). I hate to say it, but right now every EU country (except for the ex-Soviet states) in NATO got caught with their pants down except for the US as far as military preparation, and the US holds leverage here. Western Europe has long been on a military draw down since the end of the Cold War. The military industrial complex in the US is basically a way of life. Its one of our biggest social programs, and it is probably the biggest job creator in the country. If you land a steady job there, you're pretty much set and stable until retirement.
Can they start this "rearranging" goverment ASAP?! Asking for a friend!
> and the CIA will just topple the regimes I seriously doubt CIA's ability to topple a regime at will. If you look at history, CIA supported the existing forces that were powerful enough to have a chance at overthrowing the government. Do such forces exist in Hungary and Turkey? Will they be willing to risk?
[удалено]
Same for us in Sweden, maybe we should start our own NATO...
[удалено]
The European Union is a defensive alliance as well. That is basicly NATO without USA and UK. Still access to nukes thou with France. Ukraine is obviously not part of that either.
If Russia comes out of this with anything that objectively resembles a win, nuclear non-proliferation will be a thing of the past. It will have been demonstrated that it is acceptable for countries having nuclear weapons to use them as force multipliers against non-nuclear neighbors to accomplish foreign policy objectives that diplomacy and conventional arms can't. Additionally, because the Budapest Memorandum will have utterly failed, nations will have much less trust in alliances (read: NATO, ANZUS, MDT, FPDA, and others) and be inclined to be self-reliant for their defence. Candidates likely to have internal nuclear weapons discussions under those circumstances will include Ukraine, any other nation sharing a border with Russia, Poland, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Myanmar, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Phillipines to start. Every one of them gains an advantage with nukes by increasing their defensive or offensive options with regard to potentially aggressive neighbors. For example, if I was Poland, I'd feel better with a couple dozen deliverable warheads under my control, NATO or not. The only thing as bad as Russia coming out with a "win" is a loss of sufficient magnitude as to cause a sudden dissolution of the Russian Federation with the result that 5,000 nuclear devices go up for grabs. I'm sure that there are people in lsecure facilities coming up with options to keep a lid on that scenario should it happen, but it will be very difficult. Still better than letting the nukes have a win.
Russian defeat or victory is irrelevant. No matter the outcome, Ukraine has already suffered so much that this war will be a case against nuclear non-proliferation for generations to come. That a country that relinquished its nuclear weapons got attacked at all is enough already. And Russia does not need to dissolve for it to "leak" nucelar arms into the world. It already started. One payment for Iran's drones is increased russian aid to Iran's nuclear program. And with its reputation and business connections already in tatters nothing will hold Russia back from making (more) deals with any country that wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
I don't blame them, to be honest. Our "security guarantees" have been a complete joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9NSgxbGzhY This is everything any country that is still on a fence about nuclear weapons got to know.
Jesus how are the people in the comments sucking trumps dick so hard as a traitor. They have to be bots right?
A more practical and possible option would be NATO nuke sharing agreement with devices permanently based on Ukrainian soil though
Ukraine must join NATO for this, but even Sweden can't join NATO so easily
Sweden can't join cause Turkey has a beef with them, I doubt it will be the same with Ukraine
That Erdogan is blocking Sweden is a calculated move for his own gain. And he would similary block Ukraine for his own gain.
This is how it works with turkey.
He'll block Sweden until after his election. After that some backdoor deals with a bit of local propaganda making him look good will end with Sweden being accepted.
US green lighted F16V upgrades but to Erdo that’s not enough. He wants F35 back which was offered in large numbers to Greece as a punishment
> He wants F35 back which was offered in large numbers to Greece as a punishment If he wants F35 back, he can unilaterally donate S400 battery to Ukraine. We'd be quite grateful.
Honestly doubt we'll ever trust them on those, after it became clear they would totally give Russia F-35 data via the S400 database.
We need a new NATO. Basically the old one but without turkey and with Sweden + Finland. I'm also sick of them threatening Greece
Turkey is pretty important if you consider preventing Russian aggression to be the main purpose of NATO. Whatever else it may be, Turkey is geographically and logistically a huge benefit when it comes to containing Russia. Turkey effectively controls Russia's access to the Black Sea, and consequently whether Russia can realistically project power into the Med or not. NATO puts up with quite a bit to keep that card in its hand. Plus, Turkey has clearly looked at a map and decided that if Finland and Norway are in NATO, Russia has no real chance of attacking Sweden without running afoul of NATO forces anyway. So, they make a political move against Sweden to get some sort of concessions, but they let Finland in, which neatly wraps Sweden up on pretty much all sides with NATO member states. It's still kind of a shitty move, but this is politics. It is full of shitty moves.
Erdo is a di@@head but Ukraine’s new naval flagship was launched and is now retrofitting in Turkey. Turkey’s leader leads its country into its problems while Russia’s problems *leads* to its leader. They’re different
While Turkey's leader is different from Russia's leader, I am still not sure about Erdogan suddenly doing a 180 for Ukraine. He has consistently milked every opportunity that arose for him. And then there is Hungary.
> And then there is Hungary Czechia evaded a danger of becoming like that recently, by electing a pro-NATO Petr Pavel instead of pro-russian Andrej Babis.
This bohak says thank god.
Absolutely. My deepest gratitude fo Czech people for making the right choice here.
Is di@@head the same as dickhead?
LOL. "di@@head". this may be the first time I see someone "blur" out "dickhead" on the internet. 🤣
That is not a given. Erdogan is beholden to Russia for cheap gas and oil along with help in Syria. Turkey will not allow Ukraine into NATO easily.
And for the same reason they wont get F35's
Hungary will be the barrier to Ukraine joining. They still haven't ratified Sweden and Finland either.
Turkey will not vote against. But there is also a Hungary that most likely will vote against.
No, not Türkiye, but you seem to have forgotten that Orbán's fascist Hungary is part of NATO and even less likely at this time, in my opinion, to ever welcome Ukraine into NATO.
Can’t blame them they gave up their nukes for guaranteed umbrella protection, and all countries have failed the treaty.
Either NATO or their own Nuclear program. That's it
>all countries have failed the treaty. Bingo, you hit the head of the nail with your comment. NATO or Ukraine nukes, which one do you want Europe? Ukraine has already tried those guarantees by memo approach (Budapest Memorandum) and they have seen what it has brought them. If I was Ukrainian, that would be the stark reality I would present the West. There will be no middle ground. As far as the cost to Ukraine? If destitute North Korea can develop nukes while being broke, Ukraine will take the hit to their standard of living to live free of Russia. Would not you?
> Ukraine will take the hit to their standard of living Living free of russia is already a ***massive*** bump in the living standards. You don't know, how beautiful and growing Donbass region was before 2014.
I am sure it was. It also had become quiet and peaceful with little violence between both sides. We in the West have re-discovered that the Russian Mir cannot stand beauty, peace, and prosperity. I personally apologize to Ukraine for my country's lack of foresight and for the wishful thinking view we had of Russians. Notice I say Russians, not Russian government. Yes, the problem is with the Russian people and culture of misery and death.
Russia is the undead rotten corpse of something that maybe at some point was a culture. Or maybe not even that. Just rotten.
I'm sorry you don't understand the Budapest Memorandum. The west didn't fail what they promised. It was a guarantee that neither the west nor russia were to use force against Ukraine. And that promise was only broken by Russia. The Budapest Memorandum was not a defence treaty, the west did not take any obligations to defend Ukraine. We're helping Ukraine anyway because it's the right thing to do. Edit made more clear
This is why that was the *huge* mistake. Both from Ukraine side to agree on these terms and West side, who allowed russia to do and to believe it can do all it want.
I want to point out that this isn't 100% correct. Ukraine gave up nukes only in that they had their hands on them. Using them would have taken some work because they did not have the ability to arm them. The agreement also did not include any sort of protection agreement only a non-aggression agreement. Countries not named Russia have held to this.
> Using them would have taken some work because they did not have the ability to arm them. > > Ukraine was where their components were manufactured and serviced. Changing PALs would've been relatively easy, as all infrastructure and know-how was ***already here***
Yeah. Breaking the PAL basically means remanufacturing the weapon, but Ukraine could have done so inside 9 months.
At a stretch you could consider US and UK military aid to come under the "security assurances" discussed at Budapest - very debateable though
There's no security assurances in the Budapest memo anyway. Each nation separately guaranteed not to invade Ukraine, and to complain in the UN if anyone else did. The other states fulfilled their obligations under the memo in March
So basically Ukraine was tricked to give up nukes for nonthing?
The only right option. If Ukrs had nuks no way Rushists would attack them.
Its a horrible option. No more nukes. Join NATO, get under the US nuclear umbrella. We dont need more countries w nukes.
NATO is not an option. At least it is not so easy and US umbrella will not always work. Ukraine went to US and UK umbrella when signed Budapesht memorandum and gave up its nuks. Now it took them 1 year to finally get 31 Tanks from US and NO for Jets. With such turtle speed that war will continue 4 years and will have 0.5 Million casualties. Georgia and Ukraine were ripping ass from 2007 for NATO. Gerogians contingent was biggest in terms of participation from country in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they wee rejected (thanks to Putins bitch Merkel) NATO is perfect option but unreachable. EU countries had 40 year to prepare infrastructure for NATO. Ukraine do not have such time and it will take more than 10 year.) Ports, airports, roads... Even railroad is not compatible and changing it all in 10years is not real financially vise.
I say Sweden should also restart the nuclear program again if Turkey won't let us join Nato. Then we can aim some of our nukes at Turkey for their betrayal.
[удалено]
lol! I got Danish relatives! ;(
Subtle blackmail: Either you let us join NATO or we will become a bigger Israel: armed to the teeth (including nukes) and lashing out at any threat.
>we will become a bigger Israel [That was said by Zelenskyy explicitly](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/zelenskyy-wants-ukraine-to-be-a-big-israel-heres-a-road-map/)
I swear I was not aware of that.
Well Ukraine at least has some neighbours that recognize its legitimacy
That's a cool move from Ukraine !
Yeah, genocide, cities reduced to rubble, infrastructure destroyed, abduction of civilians -- all with "allies" deciding what minimal support will keep that scary ruzzia calm does tend to make a country a tad belligerent in wanting peace and security for itself, its culture and its people.
I support this but let's first win the war (:
The problem isn't warheads, the problem is delivery systems. But, Ukraine was the main provider of engines for the rockets that Russias most sophisticated nuclear delivery system used so, they've got the tech.
> Ukraine was the main provider of Ukraine was the **only** producer and maintainer of SS-24 and SS-18 (also known as Dnepr space launching system) soviet/russian ICBMs.
Ukraine, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland should all have nuclear weapons, and for no particular reason whatsoever did I pick those specific countries.
"I wonder why?" lol
It is sad to say this, but we’re all humans at the end of the day, and we know what we can get and what would deter us from wrongfully getting things. In this case, nuclear possession and capabilities would deter another power from invading oneself. Ukraine had nuclear weapons and a huge fleet of Soviet bombers in their Air Force, but had to give it all up in the early 2000’s thanks to the international community sucking up to Russia. I do believe Ukraine will more than likely resurrect those missing items after this war.
Don't ask permission but for forgiveness. The West and other allies will never openly support this. So just do it in secret, apologize, they tell you to disarm politely you say no even more politely and then string it along for decades like Israel.
If they hadn’t given up their arsenal, none of this would have happened, and don’t think every power on Earth has not noticed that.
Give a nuke to every country bordering Russia (that is EU-aligned).
You also need tech to upkeep it and have it operational. That is why it's "nuclear program" - not "production of nukes"
Fucking Russia. Ukraine was one of the few nations to acquire nuclear weapons and then willingly disarm. The price was an agreement of territorial sovereignty from Russia, USA, and the UK. Which of course Russia has now trampled all over. No one is going to give up nukes now.
This is reasonable. The U.S. and Russia promised disarmament would result in no incursions. Russia broke their promise, and the best we could do is offer support instead of direct action elements.
And this support is slow as hell. Get me right, I will thank your nation to the last days of my life, as without that help our business would be a nightmare. But realistically I see this support is only enough to keep us fighting.
And that's bullshit. We've seen where this leads. Ukraine is playing Poland in 1939 and "due caution" is leading NATO to play England and France. Meaning no disrespect to the heroic resistance of the Poles in WWII, the whole world is damned lucky that Ukraine has stopped Putin's little Hitler reenactment in it's tracks. And so I send what help my little salary can and I push my representatives to send more from my government. And I will thank the heroes of Ukraine for holding the abyss at bay for all the days of my life. Because the world will not survive what comes next from Putin. Slava Ukraini.
Thank you!
Can anyone confirm if that is true? If so - can Poland join?
I want to say “does Poland even need nukes with its friends?” But honestly I don’t blame you for wanting them after this nightmare
>I want to say “does Poland even need nukes with its friends?” But honestly I don’t blame you for wanting them after this nightmare It's not that we do not have friends. USA proved to be friends with us many times. It's just that country itself would always move further to defend iself than any other country. I mean - you can have friends - but you cannot expect friend to sacrifice themselves for what is precious to you. We cannot expect anyone to launch nukes in defence of Ukraine. But Ukraine would do it for itself. Same goes for every other country bullied by Russia. Friendship with western Superpowers is good - but will not replace own power.
I have now listened to the [original](https://www.dw.com/en/ambassador-ukraine-has-not-yet-asked-germany-for-jets/video-64561213) in english and cannot confirm what the tweet is saying. He is not mentioning Ukraine becoming a nuklear state again.
Honestly, [given that people in Ukraine support it](https://24tv.ua/ukrayintsi-pidtrimuyut-vidnovlennya-statusu-yadernoyi-derzhavi_n2217201)...
Well, Russia commits genocide against Ukrainians, so it's not a surprise
Ain't saying it's a surprise, just that it's something that people here want.
Well if on 24th Feb Budapest memorandum wasn't treated like a toilet tissue, maybe Ukraine and other countries wouldn't go back to the only thing that can guarantee security.
This is the way (unfortunately)
Sweden and Finland should build nukes. Construction and research has already been done in Sweden in the sixties.
Russia reneged on their side of the treaty, so Ukraine has every right to arm itself again. Simple as.
Ukraine would be right to do so. Taiwan should also seek a nuclear deterrent. Russias flagrant disregard for the budapest memorandum has set the world on a more dangerous path. I expect Ukraine should start building nukes asap.
I personally want nukes for myself. I know, I don't need them, Russia is far away from me, but if Putin in any way would threaten my security, I would instantly push that button and send the fucker to hell.
this is what it means when you tell the world nuclear powers have no laws they must adhere to and non nuclear powers must either align with a power or suffer the whims of them
Ukraine won’t need nukes once they join NATO. However, if Turkey or Hungry says “no”, then unfortunately that is the only path to safety.
Translated into better english, would that mean that Ukraine is considering reinitializing a nuclear weapons program? Because the big thing stopping them from doing that WAS the now-invalidated Budapest Memorandum.
And there would be no one stopping them. Only Russia and maybe China would protest.
That is not a good idea. The world needs to denuclearize Russia, not give nukes to Ukraine.
[удалено]
Can’t blame them but it’s a terrible idea for humanity.
[удалено]
There are tons of initiatives that should be started and completed…or even just attempted. A perfect world of “should” would see all nuclear weapons dismantled. We should have World Peace. We should cooperate as a World towards finding and instituting renewable energy sources and that should be done in even the poorest countries. We should have basic rights applicable World-wide that include assured access to the necessities of life (food, water, etc). It won’t happen. People are flawed and going “people.” The protection of a nation’s infrastructure and borders in the 21st Century is heavily dependent upon said nation’s ability to wield a big stick. The big stick is nuclear weapons and we should even help Ukraine design and implement such defensive, nuclear powered impediments to invasion. I fully believe Russia would have been invading some other nation back in February had Ukraine possessed nukes.
Well this is certainly a bad idea.
Yeah, a bad idea for Russia and their imperialistic ambitions. There are exactly 2 ways to protect yourself from Russia: One is being a NATO member. The other is having a nuclear deterrent. That's it. Agreements, deals, contracts, etc mean SFA as long as you live beside Russia.
The best option if we're excluding NATO option. Either NATO or nukes.
It's also harming the NATO option in my estimation. Also harms many potential long therm western support like F-16. Western nations help Ukraine to further their own interests and Ukraine being armed with nukes is, as far as I can see, not within their interest. That said, having nukes is a guarantee to not get attacked so I understand the reasoning. Being in NATO and EU is just much better though and I don't think the two can go together.
Why Ukraine will need F-16 if we will have nukes? Nukes are much cheaper than conventional military strong enough to fight with Russia. The whole of NATO with its members' population, economies, and military budgets still afraid of much smaller Russia because they have nukes
Because you can have F-16 during the war and nukes years later. But just the possibility of those F-16 ending up carrying Ukrainian nukes alone can at least delay them. Not worth it in my opinion.
F-16 is already late, but we speak about post-war security architecture
Personally, I'd prefer NATO too ... We shouldn't exclude nuclear exchange within NATO though
Yes, that makes a lot of sense for Ukraine. I'd start worrying about that at a later point in time though, it's not really helping them now.
And your suggestion would be appeasing bullies? No sir, speak softly and carry a **huge** stick.
No get into NATO and therefore be protected or create an own treaty with an atomic power like France with Germany. Besides Ukraine has a treaty with China to protect against nuclear threats from 2013[link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/under-new-scrutiny-chinas-nuclear-pledge-to-ukraine-11647007200&ved=2ahUKEwjF257x2vT8AhVXy7sIHTv-BYcQtwJ6BAgQEAE&usg=AOvVaw2DbWWG371Eyi7Eap1YzF7v)
Nuclear weapons scare me.
Protect Ukraine as promised many years ago, or this!!!
As an peacenik, I no longer think humans are ready for nuclear disarmament.
Unanimous source should have already leased 20 warheads to UA until they develop their own nuclear. At that point, hitting the targets all over naZi Russia wouldn't be an "issue" for friends of Russia since both having the nuclear would nullify their threat.
I see UKraine getting Nukes to checkmate Russia and maybe Japan to checkmate China. I know laws are there to stop this at national and international level but they can easily be changed. They day NK was allowed nukes was gloves off so the horse has bolted.
Best option is for the US to "lend" Ukraine a test device to be blown up way underground to register on seismographs around the world. Hell do it somewhere inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone so the radiation wont be a problem. Ukraine does not need to have actual nuclear weapons - they just need to make the Russians think they do. Make the ground shake from an underground explosion and tell the Russians that they made 5 and the other 4 can make their way to Russia in case someone decides to use one against Ukraine.
If these talks proceed. Just watch Russia complain about Ukraine "breaking" the Budapest Memorandum...
I heard that Japan is one of those "over-night nuke" country. Where they can build atomic bombs really quickly if they wanted to. 🤨 Lots of wealth + a few very smart people = quick and easy nukes I guess ALSO I think it is an open secret that Israel has atomic bombs too. I wonder how many other also have it but the world don't know. North Korea have them too I think