5 ms·

Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. Ukraine were pressured by Russia and the US and were offered incentives to hand the nuclear weapon

by blub 4y ago

Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. Ukraine were pressured by Russia and the US and were offered incentives to hand the nuclear weapons to Russia. Furthermore the US even had to help Russia itself with the dismantling and disposing of some weapons over the years. It was in nobody’s interest for yet another country to have nukes when poverty and corruption would have almost certainly led to “losing” them or losing them one way or another. You’ve commented on the historical territory out of the blue, I don’t see the parent commenter mentioning that. Keep in my mind that Ukraine possesses territory they gained after WW2 as part of the Soviet Union and there’s no indication that they want to return it. Opening up these old territorial disputes is not a good idea. In general trying to present Ukraine as fundamentally different from Russia as far as corruption or trustworthiness goes when they were both part of the Soviet Union and very close until 2014 is dubious and not supported by facts.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. The Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agrees to divest itself of nukes in exchange from formal guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, is hardly irrelevant here.
- blub 4y ago
  It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons: * as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. * as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes). And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant. > But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus. "What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense. > And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.
asimpletune 4y ago
My point about territory is to point out one example, of many, that Russia will claim whatever it wants when it stands to benefit. This is because the OP was talking about trust, and I was giving reasons for disagreeing with their pov. The nuclear stuff is also relevant because, again, nuclear disarmament was exchange for security (read: territory) guarantees. In this respect the issue of who can be trusted is clear. Regarding your final point about both countries having corruption and being very close, sure. I don’t think I follow the point though. One country has invaded the other with an army after promising not to do so. That’s what is relevant here, not black markets or mafia or just a culture of cynicism and corruption. If Ukraine wanted to change and stop doing things the old way in 2014 then that’s good I guess.

by blub 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. The Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agrees to divest itself of nukes in exchange from formal guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, is hardly irrelevant here.

blub 4y ago
It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons: * as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. * as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes). And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant. > But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus. "What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense. > And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.

asimpletune 4y ago

My point about territory is to point out one example, of many, that Russia will claim whatever it wants when it stands to benefit. This is because the OP was talking about trust, and I was giving reasons for disagreeing with their pov. The nuclear stuff is also relevant because, again, nuclear disarmament was exchange for security (read: territory) guarantees. In this respect the issue of who can be trusted is clear. Regarding your final point about both countries having corruption and being very close, sure. I don’t think I follow the point though. One country has invaded the other with an army after promising not to do so. That’s what is relevant here, not black markets or mafia or just a culture of cynicism and corruption. If Ukraine wanted to change and stop doing things the old way in 2014 then that’s good I guess.