4 ms·

> Sweden thereby joined a unique club of nations – which includes Switzerland, Ukraine and South Africa – who gave up their nuclear weapons programmes and showe

> Sweden thereby joined a unique club of nations – which includes Switzerland, Ukraine and South Africa – who gave up their nuclear weapons programmes and showed the world that nuclear disarmament was possible. I bet Ukraine is regretting their decision right now.

justrealist 3y ago
Since 2014.
vbezhenar 3y ago
They didn't have a choice. Nuclear weapons require significant investments to keep them working, Ukraine was a poor country back then. They also had incredible pressure from the other huge countries, so if they would keep them, they probably would be sanctioned like Iran. I live in Kazakhstan which also gave up its USSR nuclear legacy and it was the only sane way to go. What Ukraine should have done back then is get better guarantees for this deal. Not some sketchy "Memorandums" which bind to nothing.
- dtx1 3y ago
  > They didn't have a choice. They had a shitload of nukes. That gives you a lot of choices. They just sadly chose wrong thinking that the world is better of with them not having them. Should have kept a few.
  - azinman2 3y ago
    And do you think if they had they’d have nuked Russia by now? And then what?
    - rapidaneurism 3y ago
      The whole point of nuclear weapons is that people don't attack you because you will use them. So if they had them Russia would not have attacked.
      - dtx1 3y ago
        I think russia would have attacked crimea as they did but the extended war would have stopped. Ukraine could for example use smaller nuclear weapons to attack military infrastructure like the crimean bridge, railway infrastructure etc. I'm not advocating large scale nuclear war but a doctrine like france has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
  - jajko 3y ago
    Lesson to be learned - never, ever trust russia as a state, it was and always will be source of subversion and various forms of attacks to anything representing freedom and democracy. Rule of law is a joke there, truth is an insult, the only thing matters who is currently stronger. Words, written or spoken are just tools to use and then abandon at convenience. Basically how mafia hierarchy and politics works. Not sure how world should treat it post this war (barring it won't turn into WW 3), but never, ever as equal, always expect treachery. Enough lessons at this point.
    - vbezhenar 3y ago
      The funny thing is that many Russian people thinking exactly the same about western countries. Putin underlined multiple times, how European leaders fooled him, again and again, signing contracts and making promises just to break them next day. And this narrative basically everywhere. I don't think that Russians will hate Europeans in general, but they certainly will not trust European politicians for a long way to come. So this will be mutual. China and some other countries, on the other hand, are considered trustworthy partners who play by rules.
      - monkeyfun 3y ago
        Do you have any good examples of what you mentioned with either those contract or especially Putin mentioning specific ones? I'm quite curious.
      - mmaniac 3y ago
        The funny thing is that anyone thinks that the concepts of rule of law, sanctity of truth, and right over might concretely exist anywhere, and aren't just notional components of a legitimizing narrative. We have all lived through 2020 here.
- tephra 3y ago
  The problem for Ukraine was that they didn't have that much control over the weapons. The ability to launch them was only something Moscow could do (they might have been able to reverse engineer control and remove safeguards and the might not). They needed to have tritium replaced every 12 years and IIRC many of the nuclear forced remained loyal to Russia. That's their bargaining position at the time and that's before we add the international pressure to get rid of them.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    Ukrainian engineers built the nukes. They wouldn't need to do that much reverse engineering.
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      By your logic Soviet space program was made by Kazakhs.
      - throwaway11460 3y ago
        Not sure what logic you're imagining. No, it's not based on location of the weapons - it's based on the fact that the top nuclear research institutions of the Soviet Union were in Ukraine. The space program had a lot of Ukrainians too.
        justsomehnguy 3y ago
        There is a big leap between "Ukrainian engineers built the nukes" and "some engineers in the Soviet nuclear program were of the Ukrainian ethnicity".
        throwaway11460 3y ago
        I said Ukrainian engineers built the nukes because that's what happened. Of course they did it as part of the Soviet Union - and yeah, some of the engineers were of the Russian ethnicity too.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  > Ukraine was a poor country It has a lot of nuclear physicists and rocket scientists. My uncle was a Ukrainian ICBM scientist! IMO, a quintessential American foreign policy error is to measure the worth of others based only on purchasing power of imports; and then, even when they go past that 0th level of the expanding brain meme onto the value of human capital, the only human capital they value is traditional Western human capital. Anyway, the engagement on this platform over foreign policy issues is great. I’m literally a product of foreign policy. Nearly everyone I know is affected by foreign policy. It’s valuable to have an opinion about this stuff.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    It's a broad problem of the financialisation mindset - trying to view everything in monetary terms. It's particularly misleading when thinking about a sovereign government's fiscal policy, which always needs to be considered in terms of resourcing, not money.
  - saati 3y ago
    > It has a lot of nuclear physicists and rocket scientists. And no way to finance them.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      Even if they did, they wouldn't have been allowed to keep them due to not having political and military power. As in, if they had decided to keep the weapons, their borders would have been redrawn or they would have been militarily attacked.
- cm2187 3y ago
  Guarantees in international relations are only worth the will of the guarantor to enforce them.
- __turbobrew__ 3y ago
  The only good guarantee is that you can turn an opposing nation into ash. Libya got bombed by NATO shortly after giving up their nuclear program despite them trying to reconcile ties to western nations.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Gaddafi’s Libya was a state that put suitcase bombs on Western passenger airplanes just for kicks (270 innocent people dead in Scotland in 1988). Not even North Korea does that kind of shit. Reconciling was a pipe dream.
    - istultus 3y ago
      This case is a true unknown. There is an open question as to who carried out the bombing, with multiple intelligence services blaming Syria. the US decided to blame Gaddafi though, and he was happy to take the blame as it plays well to the "Arab street." The trials resulting from the bombing are considered show trials by some... just an unknown...
      - clarionbell 3y ago
        It was not an isolated incident. Gaddafi had it coming. And his regime too.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Yeah, at least the US had the decency to use anti-aircraft missiles when it shot down an airliner. It’s all about being honourable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
      - echoangle 3y ago
        Do you not see the difference between a suitcase bomb on an airliner and an accidental shootdown?
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > They didn't have a choice. Nuclear weapons require significant investments to keep them working. They did have a choice. A choice between short-term prosperity and guaranteed long-term security. They chose prosperity because Russia didn't feel like a threat back in the early 1990s. Russia under Gorbachev and Yeltsin felt like the beginning of a democratic era for that country. The mood was extremely optimistic and hopeful. The error Ukrainians made was tragic. They should have learned that historical patterns repeat. You do not want to be a country between Germany and Russia without a mutual defense treaty with a superpower (which I recognize that you noted in your post), or nukes.
- lmmortal 3y ago
  North Korea and Iran have proven investments are not an issue. > they probably would be sanctioned like Iran pretty wild assumption Ukraine gave up nukes because we thought it was the right thing to do. Obviously, no other country will do that in the future.
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    > North Korea and Iran have proven investments are not an issue. Technically it could be done, I guess. But probably Ukrainians did not want to live in isolation. I mean, the whole USSR collapse was about indulging in the "western values". Jeans, bubblegum, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all cool stuff. > Obviously, no other country will do that in the future. We will see when US will collapse and states will separate. I don't think that all of them would keep nuclear weapons.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
sneak 3y ago
> I bet Ukraine is regretting their decision right now. Why? What do you think would be different now? Do you think Ukraine would have used them against Russia in response to a ground invasion that has used only conventional weapons thus far?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > ground invasion that has used only conventional weapons thus far? And chemical. And has violated most other rules of warfare (as does every other war). Rape, genocide and murder of civilians is a bit too common in this conflict. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/russia-accused-of-using-chemical-gas-attacks-against-ukrainian-soldiers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/russia-accused...
- Yeul 3y ago
  Nuclear weapons work as a pretty good deterrent because it's literally impossible to know if your opponent will push the button. Even Russians, famous for their disregard for human life, would not take the risk.
- decafninja 3y ago
  No, but working nukes might have prevented a Russian invasion in the first place. Russia having nukes is also a big reason NATO is tiptoeing around to avoid offending Putin too severely.

justrealist 3y ago

Since 2014.

vbezhenar 3y ago

They didn't have a choice. Nuclear weapons require significant investments to keep them working, Ukraine was a poor country back then. They also had incredible pressure from the other huge countries, so if they would keep them, they probably would be sanctioned like Iran. I live in Kazakhstan which also gave up its USSR nuclear legacy and it was the only sane way to go. What Ukraine should have done back then is get better guarantees for this deal. Not some sketchy "Memorandums" which bind to nothing.

dtx1 3y ago
> They didn't have a choice. They had a shitload of nukes. That gives you a lot of choices. They just sadly chose wrong thinking that the world is better of with them not having them. Should have kept a few.
- azinman2 3y ago
  And do you think if they had they’d have nuked Russia by now? And then what?
  - rapidaneurism 3y ago
    The whole point of nuclear weapons is that people don't attack you because you will use them. So if they had them Russia would not have attacked.
    - dtx1 3y ago
      I think russia would have attacked crimea as they did but the extended war would have stopped. Ukraine could for example use smaller nuclear weapons to attack military infrastructure like the crimean bridge, railway infrastructure etc. I'm not advocating large scale nuclear war but a doctrine like france has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
- jajko 3y ago
  Lesson to be learned - never, ever trust russia as a state, it was and always will be source of subversion and various forms of attacks to anything representing freedom and democracy. Rule of law is a joke there, truth is an insult, the only thing matters who is currently stronger. Words, written or spoken are just tools to use and then abandon at convenience. Basically how mafia hierarchy and politics works. Not sure how world should treat it post this war (barring it won't turn into WW 3), but never, ever as equal, always expect treachery. Enough lessons at this point.
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    The funny thing is that many Russian people thinking exactly the same about western countries. Putin underlined multiple times, how European leaders fooled him, again and again, signing contracts and making promises just to break them next day. And this narrative basically everywhere. I don't think that Russians will hate Europeans in general, but they certainly will not trust European politicians for a long way to come. So this will be mutual. China and some other countries, on the other hand, are considered trustworthy partners who play by rules.
    - monkeyfun 3y ago
      Do you have any good examples of what you mentioned with either those contract or especially Putin mentioning specific ones? I'm quite curious.
    - mmaniac 3y ago
      The funny thing is that anyone thinks that the concepts of rule of law, sanctity of truth, and right over might concretely exist anywhere, and aren't just notional components of a legitimizing narrative. We have all lived through 2020 here.
tephra 3y ago
The problem for Ukraine was that they didn't have that much control over the weapons. The ability to launch them was only something Moscow could do (they might have been able to reverse engineer control and remove safeguards and the might not). They needed to have tritium replaced every 12 years and IIRC many of the nuclear forced remained loyal to Russia. That's their bargaining position at the time and that's before we add the international pressure to get rid of them.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  Ukrainian engineers built the nukes. They wouldn't need to do that much reverse engineering.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    By your logic Soviet space program was made by Kazakhs.
    - throwaway11460 3y ago
      Not sure what logic you're imagining. No, it's not based on location of the weapons - it's based on the fact that the top nuclear research institutions of the Soviet Union were in Ukraine. The space program had a lot of Ukrainians too.
      - justsomehnguy 3y ago
        There is a big leap between "Ukrainian engineers built the nukes" and "some engineers in the Soviet nuclear program were of the Ukrainian ethnicity".
        throwaway11460 3y ago
        I said Ukrainian engineers built the nukes because that's what happened. Of course they did it as part of the Soviet Union - and yeah, some of the engineers were of the Russian ethnicity too.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
> Ukraine was a poor country It has a lot of nuclear physicists and rocket scientists. My uncle was a Ukrainian ICBM scientist! IMO, a quintessential American foreign policy error is to measure the worth of others based only on purchasing power of imports; and then, even when they go past that 0th level of the expanding brain meme onto the value of human capital, the only human capital they value is traditional Western human capital. Anyway, the engagement on this platform over foreign policy issues is great. I’m literally a product of foreign policy. Nearly everyone I know is affected by foreign policy. It’s valuable to have an opinion about this stuff.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  It's a broad problem of the financialisation mindset - trying to view everything in monetary terms. It's particularly misleading when thinking about a sovereign government's fiscal policy, which always needs to be considered in terms of resourcing, not money.
- saati 3y ago
  > It has a lot of nuclear physicists and rocket scientists. And no way to finance them.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Even if they did, they wouldn't have been allowed to keep them due to not having political and military power. As in, if they had decided to keep the weapons, their borders would have been redrawn or they would have been militarily attacked.
cm2187 3y ago
Guarantees in international relations are only worth the will of the guarantor to enforce them.
__turbobrew__ 3y ago
The only good guarantee is that you can turn an opposing nation into ash. Libya got bombed by NATO shortly after giving up their nuclear program despite them trying to reconcile ties to western nations.
- pavlov 3y ago
  Gaddafi’s Libya was a state that put suitcase bombs on Western passenger airplanes just for kicks (270 innocent people dead in Scotland in 1988). Not even North Korea does that kind of shit. Reconciling was a pipe dream.
  - istultus 3y ago
    This case is a true unknown. There is an open question as to who carried out the bombing, with multiple intelligence services blaming Syria. the US decided to blame Gaddafi though, and he was happy to take the blame as it plays well to the "Arab street." The trials resulting from the bombing are considered show trials by some... just an unknown...
    - clarionbell 3y ago
      It was not an isolated incident. Gaddafi had it coming. And his regime too.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Yeah, at least the US had the decency to use anti-aircraft missiles when it shot down an airliner. It’s all about being honourable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    - echoangle 3y ago
      Do you not see the difference between a suitcase bomb on an airliner and an accidental shootdown?
hackerlight 3y ago
> They didn't have a choice. Nuclear weapons require significant investments to keep them working. They did have a choice. A choice between short-term prosperity and guaranteed long-term security. They chose prosperity because Russia didn't feel like a threat back in the early 1990s. Russia under Gorbachev and Yeltsin felt like the beginning of a democratic era for that country. The mood was extremely optimistic and hopeful. The error Ukrainians made was tragic. They should have learned that historical patterns repeat. You do not want to be a country between Germany and Russia without a mutual defense treaty with a superpower (which I recognize that you noted in your post), or nukes.
lmmortal 3y ago
North Korea and Iran have proven investments are not an issue. > they probably would be sanctioned like Iran pretty wild assumption Ukraine gave up nukes because we thought it was the right thing to do. Obviously, no other country will do that in the future.
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  > North Korea and Iran have proven investments are not an issue. Technically it could be done, I guess. But probably Ukrainians did not want to live in isolation. I mean, the whole USSR collapse was about indulging in the "western values". Jeans, bubblegum, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all cool stuff. > Obviously, no other country will do that in the future. We will see when US will collapse and states will separate. I don't think that all of them would keep nuclear weapons.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

sneak 3y ago

> I bet Ukraine is regretting their decision right now. Why? What do you think would be different now? Do you think Ukraine would have used them against Russia in response to a ground invasion that has used only conventional weapons thus far?

lostlogin 3y ago
> ground invasion that has used only conventional weapons thus far? And chemical. And has violated most other rules of warfare (as does every other war). Rape, genocide and murder of civilians is a bit too common in this conflict. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/russia-accused-of-using-chemical-gas-attacks-against-ukrainian-soldiers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/russia-accused...
Yeul 3y ago
Nuclear weapons work as a pretty good deterrent because it's literally impossible to know if your opponent will push the button. Even Russians, famous for their disregard for human life, would not take the risk.
decafninja 3y ago
No, but working nukes might have prevented a Russian invasion in the first place. Russia having nukes is also a big reason NATO is tiptoeing around to avoid offending Putin too severely.