8 ms·

There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention

There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention anything about "upgrades" which is akin to building new nukes. Not the first time the US has done this when considering how Nato only provided a verbal agreement they wouldnt expand towards Russia and here we are now. Oh and lets not forget Crimea region (assuming sea area) is reportedly supposed to have the 4 largest oil deposits which always comes in handy when the Saudi's are running out hence the massive diversification drive seen in the middle east. I did notice someone felt uneasy about anthrax spores contaminating soil so decided to have a bit of a bonfire on Anthrax Island in the UK! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60892350 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-608... It wouldnt have taken much to find some spores, wild bird nesting sites will turn soil over and could still offer up some spores post bonfire, but it doesnt take much to bring on your own dormant biological weapon anthrax spores in todays world with easy access to knowledge across borders. Cows & Sheep are natural carriers, sheep more so due to their high copper content which is needed to make wool, which is why they used sheep in the original Anthrax Island experiment, but its basic biology growing your own bacteria now a days! Militaries around the world when they did these sorts of experiments decades ago, never thought communication would improve to todays standards ie the internet which means alot of things they thought they could keep secret is no longer the case! One of their tactics with sensitive stuff is to use older people because they die off more quickly and the secrets die with them, plus old people dont get to spend time with the younger generation that could be an easy way to pass on secrets. Moral of the story, talk to the older generation which might have worked in the military doing secret stuff to find out what they know. However even your grandparents who might have been in that situation, wont tell you everything they did, because it might protect you, so talk to random older people to find out stuff, less obvious connection then.

te_chris 5y ago
“Here we are now”. Oh please, not this rubbish. No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour.
- danbruc 5y ago
  No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour. Sure, but. The USA did not tolerate Soviet missiles on Cuba and I am not sure this has changed - would the USA tolerate Russian or Chinese missiles at its border today? Therefore just saying that the Ukraine or any other Russian neighbor are sovereign states and can do whatever they want is at least somewhat of a double standard. And just to be clear, I am not justifying the invasion, I am not saying that there was no attempt to find a compromise, I am not saying that Russia is not responsible that no compromise was reached, I am just saying that states constantly have interests in what other states are doing or not doing, and saying Ukraine or any other state is sovereign and can do whatever they want without consequences is naive a point of view and at best yields the correct conclusions by accident. With that said, I still hope that the Ukraine will defeat the Russians as quickly as possible, with as little casualties as possible on both sides, and regain control of the entire territory as it was until 2014.
  - ovi256 5y ago
    There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.
Swenrekcah 5y ago
Don’t get confused by Kremlin propaganda. It’s Putins neighbours that desperately want to get into NATO so he doesn’t invade and slaughter them like he’s doing with Ukraine now. He has a history of his behaviour.
- danbruc 5y ago
  It’s Putins neighbours that desperately want to get into NATO so he doesn’t invade and slaughter them like he’s doing with Ukraine now. He has a history of his behaviour. And it was the Cuban government that wanted Soviet missiles on Cuba as a deterrent against another Bay of Pigs Invasion.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I was thinking recently about how both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Russian invasion of Ukraine had wildly insufficient hard power put into them by the aggressors, in part because of groupthink causing the leadership to wildly underestimate their opponents and overestimate the local support for the exiles who formed part of the invasion force. (I also wonder how much of what I think happened in the Cold War is what actually happened, and how much is just the stories my side likes to tell itself. One of the fun things I found when learning German is that it has the same word for both “history” and “story”: “Geschichte”).
    - danbruc 5y ago
      I am German and I don't think I have ever really noticed this. Even though they are the same words letter by letter, they are still two completely separate words conceptually, i.e. Geschichte is not understood to generally mean story and sometimes in in a certain context to more specifically mean a story about the past, i.e. history. The origin however may be exactly this, but I don't know that.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    And that also does not justify an annexation of Cuba by the US, so we agree I believe that this Russian invasion is completely unjustified.
frupert52 5y ago
> “and here we are now” No of course, that’s a completely logical story arc. Good thing it makes so much sense otherwise I’d be skeptical you were leaving some information out.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  You think a one sentence summary of events may not have provided all the nuance of the situation? Preposterous.
YakBizzarro 5y ago
> There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention anything about "upgrades" which is akin to building new nukes. Given that we are talking about Uranium, and all the US stockpile uses Plutonium, I don't see how they would have used that for nukes. As suggested by others, more probably they blended that with depleted Uranium and used as cheap fuel for reactors

te_chris 5y ago

“Here we are now”. Oh please, not this rubbish. No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour.

danbruc 5y ago
No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour. Sure, but. The USA did not tolerate Soviet missiles on Cuba and I am not sure this has changed - would the USA tolerate Russian or Chinese missiles at its border today? Therefore just saying that the Ukraine or any other Russian neighbor are sovereign states and can do whatever they want is at least somewhat of a double standard. And just to be clear, I am not justifying the invasion, I am not saying that there was no attempt to find a compromise, I am not saying that Russia is not responsible that no compromise was reached, I am just saying that states constantly have interests in what other states are doing or not doing, and saying Ukraine or any other state is sovereign and can do whatever they want without consequences is naive a point of view and at best yields the correct conclusions by accident. With that said, I still hope that the Ukraine will defeat the Russians as quickly as possible, with as little casualties as possible on both sides, and regain control of the entire territory as it was until 2014.
- ovi256 5y ago
  There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.

Swenrekcah 5y ago

Don’t get confused by Kremlin propaganda. It’s Putins neighbours that desperately want to get into NATO so he doesn’t invade and slaughter them like he’s doing with Ukraine now. He has a history of his behaviour.

danbruc 5y ago
It’s Putins neighbours that desperately want to get into NATO so he doesn’t invade and slaughter them like he’s doing with Ukraine now. He has a history of his behaviour. And it was the Cuban government that wanted Soviet missiles on Cuba as a deterrent against another Bay of Pigs Invasion.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I was thinking recently about how both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Russian invasion of Ukraine had wildly insufficient hard power put into them by the aggressors, in part because of groupthink causing the leadership to wildly underestimate their opponents and overestimate the local support for the exiles who formed part of the invasion force. (I also wonder how much of what I think happened in the Cold War is what actually happened, and how much is just the stories my side likes to tell itself. One of the fun things I found when learning German is that it has the same word for both “history” and “story”: “Geschichte”).
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I am German and I don't think I have ever really noticed this. Even though they are the same words letter by letter, they are still two completely separate words conceptually, i.e. Geschichte is not understood to generally mean story and sometimes in in a certain context to more specifically mean a story about the past, i.e. history. The origin however may be exactly this, but I don't know that.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  And that also does not justify an annexation of Cuba by the US, so we agree I believe that this Russian invasion is completely unjustified.

frupert52 5y ago

> “and here we are now” No of course, that’s a completely logical story arc. Good thing it makes so much sense otherwise I’d be skeptical you were leaving some information out.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
You think a one sentence summary of events may not have provided all the nuance of the situation? Preposterous.

YakBizzarro 5y ago

> There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention anything about "upgrades" which is akin to building new nukes. Given that we are talking about Uranium, and all the US stockpile uses Plutonium, I don't see how they would have used that for nukes. As suggested by others, more probably they blended that with depleted Uranium and used as cheap fuel for reactors