3 ms·

> the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already. UKRAINE DID NO

> the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already. UKRAINE DID NOT WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THEIR TERRITORY. There was no path to Ukraine maintaining the nuclear weapons while also NOT having the Russian troops on Ukrainian land. The discussion of "oh, they can re-wire the weapons" would have trigged IMMEDIATE WAR with Russia. Ukraine DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS. I really don't understand why you're bringing up any other information because what I've written is the start and the end of the discussion.

Retric 2y ago
> no path Clearly war was one option to remove Russian troops. Saying there’s no options, is a vast oversimplification. Call up the troupes on the phone and say we’re unhappy about those ICBM’s in our territory where going to start artillery bombardment noon tomorrow and suggest you leave before then.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Apparently that path came with consequences that made it less attractive than giving it all up.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Many options were less attractive, but the government also had very close ties with Russia at the time so there was an impetus to find an excuse to hand them over.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Yes, the option in that case was “get nuked into fucking oblivion by the Russians” and know the USA would not have stepped in. I’m sure the Ukrainian top brass spent a long time wargaming that one </sarcasm> Please explain how instigating a war with Russia leads to less troops on Ukrainian land.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Leave we are going to start shelling that location tomorrow isn’t a declaration of war, it’s a threat. What happens afterwards can vary quite a bit, rather than your simplistic understanding of how the world works. Starting a war when the country was in the middle of a total economic collapse was hardly a viable option for Russia at the time. There’s been 2 recent wars between Russia and Ukraine without any nukes involved. Nuclear bombardment of a country on your border isn’t such a great idea of a whole host of reasons.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      What do you think Russia’s response to that would be? “Leave us your nukes or we’ll take them by force.” Talk me through the next steps.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Timing is a big deal here the day after USSR dissolved likely would have gotten them to leave. Our nukes is an arbitrary viewpoint, it’s not like the USSR limited nuke production to inside Russia. As things stabilized inside Russia it quickly became too late, but actually shelling the location of using an EOD team to ‘destroy’ the nukes puts a different spin on things.
        scott_w 2y ago
        You’re living in a fantasy world if you really think this. We’d have seen Ukraine cease to exist by 1993. If Russia wasn’t in a state to fight conventionally, they’d have nuked Ukraine. The USA would do nothing because why would they defend an antagonistic state trying to become a nuclear power? If you think otherwise, you really aren’t living in the same reality as the rest of us. How do I know this would have happened? Ukraine chose to give them back. They did the same calculation but, unlike you, they understand how things really work and what would really have happened.

Retric 2y ago

> no path Clearly war was one option to remove Russian troops. Saying there’s no options, is a vast oversimplification. Call up the troupes on the phone and say we’re unhappy about those ICBM’s in our territory where going to start artillery bombardment noon tomorrow and suggest you leave before then.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Apparently that path came with consequences that made it less attractive than giving it all up.
- Retric 2y ago
  Many options were less attractive, but the government also had very close ties with Russia at the time so there was an impetus to find an excuse to hand them over.
scott_w 2y ago
Yes, the option in that case was “get nuked into fucking oblivion by the Russians” and know the USA would not have stepped in. I’m sure the Ukrainian top brass spent a long time wargaming that one </sarcasm> Please explain how instigating a war with Russia leads to less troops on Ukrainian land.
- Retric 2y ago
  Leave we are going to start shelling that location tomorrow isn’t a declaration of war, it’s a threat. What happens afterwards can vary quite a bit, rather than your simplistic understanding of how the world works. Starting a war when the country was in the middle of a total economic collapse was hardly a viable option for Russia at the time. There’s been 2 recent wars between Russia and Ukraine without any nukes involved. Nuclear bombardment of a country on your border isn’t such a great idea of a whole host of reasons.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    What do you think Russia’s response to that would be? “Leave us your nukes or we’ll take them by force.” Talk me through the next steps.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Timing is a big deal here the day after USSR dissolved likely would have gotten them to leave. Our nukes is an arbitrary viewpoint, it’s not like the USSR limited nuke production to inside Russia. As things stabilized inside Russia it quickly became too late, but actually shelling the location of using an EOD team to ‘destroy’ the nukes puts a different spin on things.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        You’re living in a fantasy world if you really think this. We’d have seen Ukraine cease to exist by 1993. If Russia wasn’t in a state to fight conventionally, they’d have nuked Ukraine. The USA would do nothing because why would they defend an antagonistic state trying to become a nuclear power? If you think otherwise, you really aren’t living in the same reality as the rest of us. How do I know this would have happened? Ukraine chose to give them back. They did the same calculation but, unlike you, they understand how things really work and what would really have happened.