3 ms·

Here comes the Russian propaganda... The nukes belonged to Ukraine. Just like Belarus nukes belonged to them. What is said by Russian propagandists is that Ukr

Here comes the Russian propaganda... The nukes belonged to Ukraine. Just like Belarus nukes belonged to them. What is said by Russian propagandists is that Ukraine didn't have the launch codes - like it was some magical barrier that would prevent Ukraine from deploying the nukes if they wanted to. Like Ukrainian scientists didn't play a major a role in USSR nuclear development, and didn't have the know how to just use other system to deploy the nukes. It's part of the Russian propaganda to make Ukrainians into incompetent inferior ethnic group - why do you think they address them by derogatory ethnic slurs like "little Russians"?

kelipso 2y ago
[flagged]
- libertine 2y ago
  You're in the wrong place to spread Russia propaganda, here we go: > After its dissolution in 1991, Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production. Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[0] [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_... And the magical Russian propaganda launch codes that required Russia and USA to request Ukraine to decommission nukes, because Ukraine couldn't use any of those nukes. By the way, what are the launch codes for nukes deployed by bombers lmao the bombers won't take off if Russia didn't insert the launch codes?
  - kelipso 2y ago
    Lol using wikipedia as a source. Either way, the fact remains that there was no set of events in which Ukraine would have been allowed to have nukes. If Ukraine has said no, either the new government would be replaced or Ukraine would have gotten invaded by US and Russia simultaneously. It's nice that people say Ukraine and the other countries owned the nukes or whatever and have them sign an agreement to "hand over" something they didn't own, but that's just optics. Reality is Ukraine never could use those nukes and didn't have a military force or access to the nukes to keep them.
    - lovich 2y ago
      If they couldn't have kept them, why were they asked?
    - libertine 2y ago
      Of course Wikipedia, or any other source, wouldn't be enough. By the way, what is your source? Here's the man himself, Bill Clinton, stating it was not only a possibility for Ukraine to keep their nukes, but also that it was a mistake he regrets making: https://youtu.be/nKoba5GvNsc?si=3T1W6BvrqEqvkpNE https://youtu.be/nKoba5GvNsc?si=3T1W6BvrqEqvkpNE So not only you're spreading propaganda, and lies, without sources to support your claims, you're even doubling down on more fantasy. The fact is that Ukraine could use those nukes, both the ICBM ones that would require the "magical codes", also the ones deployed by the bombers, they also had the technical know how to further develop their nuclear arsenal, as well as having the fuel to produce more.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        If you think Clinton wouldn't spread lies and propaganda while supporting a proxy war against Russia, I don't know what to tell someone as naive as you. Have at least a little bit of critical thinking please. He said this last year! Ukraine simply did not have the infrastructure, supporting military, or supporting scientists for what you are saying. If they did, they would be a much more developed country right now.
        libertine 2y ago
        There it is in full display, full blown fantasy, with zero facts or sources typical Russian propaganda that works only in people with very poor levels of education lmao We're done here.
        kelipso 2y ago
        You are just bought into the propaganda. It's unfortunate but there is no point to a real discussion with someone as bought in as you.

kelipso 2y ago

[flagged]

libertine 2y ago
You're in the wrong place to spread Russia propaganda, here we go: > After its dissolution in 1991, Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production. Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[0] [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_... And the magical Russian propaganda launch codes that required Russia and USA to request Ukraine to decommission nukes, because Ukraine couldn't use any of those nukes. By the way, what are the launch codes for nukes deployed by bombers lmao the bombers won't take off if Russia didn't insert the launch codes?
- kelipso 2y ago
  Lol using wikipedia as a source. Either way, the fact remains that there was no set of events in which Ukraine would have been allowed to have nukes. If Ukraine has said no, either the new government would be replaced or Ukraine would have gotten invaded by US and Russia simultaneously. It's nice that people say Ukraine and the other countries owned the nukes or whatever and have them sign an agreement to "hand over" something they didn't own, but that's just optics. Reality is Ukraine never could use those nukes and didn't have a military force or access to the nukes to keep them.
  - lovich 2y ago
    If they couldn't have kept them, why were they asked?
  - libertine 2y ago
    Of course Wikipedia, or any other source, wouldn't be enough. By the way, what is your source? Here's the man himself, Bill Clinton, stating it was not only a possibility for Ukraine to keep their nukes, but also that it was a mistake he regrets making: https://youtu.be/nKoba5GvNsc?si=3T1W6BvrqEqvkpNE https://youtu.be/nKoba5GvNsc?si=3T1W6BvrqEqvkpNE So not only you're spreading propaganda, and lies, without sources to support your claims, you're even doubling down on more fantasy. The fact is that Ukraine could use those nukes, both the ICBM ones that would require the "magical codes", also the ones deployed by the bombers, they also had the technical know how to further develop their nuclear arsenal, as well as having the fuel to produce more.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      If you think Clinton wouldn't spread lies and propaganda while supporting a proxy war against Russia, I don't know what to tell someone as naive as you. Have at least a little bit of critical thinking please. He said this last year! Ukraine simply did not have the infrastructure, supporting military, or supporting scientists for what you are saying. If they did, they would be a much more developed country right now.
      - libertine 2y ago
        There it is in full display, full blown fantasy, with zero facts or sources typical Russian propaganda that works only in people with very poor levels of education lmao We're done here.
        kelipso 2y ago
        You are just bought into the propaganda. It's unfortunate but there is no point to a real discussion with someone as bought in as you.