49 ms·

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promis

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.

clivestaples 2y ago
The war has been going on for three years with no end in sight. What's the next move? What are your ideas to defeat Russia and take back the areas they've gained since 2014?
- watwut 2y ago
  The thoughts are to NOT allow them to have time to rearm, get ready for another invasion, get another territory. And then again and again. That is all the peace right now would be - strategic pause so that Russia can get stronger for the next attack. Also, Trump is supporting Russia while attacking Europe, Canada, Mexico, Greenland ... . Trump talks about annexing parts of Europe (Greenland) and annexing Canada.
  - robwwilliams 2y ago
    More than a maniac.
  - clivestaples 2y ago
    So by continuing to send more cash and weapons, it will eventually force Russia to retreat? I'm trying to understand what would secure victory.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Prevent further expansion and besides, yes, they are attritioning. Or were before they found new supporter and ally in the form of America. Like common, Trump is not just stoping to send arms. He is doing everything he can to weaken west and empowers Russia.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What's the next move? Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy. There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy. This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Surely we can all see this logic for the farce that it is. Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war and it’s only with massive international support that they’re able to maintain the fragile stalemate they now find themselves in.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2 Hitler argued that he lost WWII because external powers were limiting the Nazis through diplomatic channels?! (Also, since when do we care about how Hitler justified things?) > Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war A significant amount of Russia’s naval and air assets were vulnerable to Ukrainian drone and missile fire in ‘22. > it’s only with massive international support You mean like the American Revolution, WWI for the Allies, WWII for the Allies and the Cold War for Europe?
    - watwut 2y ago
      > This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.
      - Tainnor 2y ago
        Well yes. But he also claimed that Poland had attacked first.
- erentz 2y ago
  Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position. They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.
  - deactivatedexp 2y ago
    what do they get by supporting russia? would love some data
    - kdmtctl 2y ago
      If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Give them the tools they need to finish the job. This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.
  - clivestaples 2y ago
    That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.
    - m4rtink 2y ago
      Not arbitrarily stopping intel sharing and - reportedly - remotely disabling supplied wepons (!!) would be a good first step. Like if you ever want anyone to give you a single dolar for your weapons in the future.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - mopsi 2y ago
      The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction. Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them. Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy. The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives. It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.
- robwwilliams 2y ago
  Help them win it. Like we did in two world wars in the 20th century. Here in the 21st century we get off easy and just provide material support, and intelligence; not blood. Hell of a deal to defend democracy.
  - deactivatedexp 2y ago
    why not lead the way and go join the fight? you never know you might inspire people to join voluntarily
    - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
      Ah the we should improve society somewhat meme in the flesh.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    US helped Russia win in the second world war. You want them to do that again?
  - clivestaples 2y ago
    We've been doing that. What more do you suggest we do?
- azan_ 2y ago
  Letting Russia keep the territories they control now is a great way to ensure that in few years when they rebuild their military potential they will attack again.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    It also signals wars of conquest are back. That’s a message that will also be heard by revanchists in Beijing and New Delhi and expansionists in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and D.C.
- picafrost 2y ago
  The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader. Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatening nuclear weapons. They disregard all negotiated agreements and treaties, poison dissidents in countries the US is allied with, with impunity, engage in asymmetric warfare against Europe and the US, meddle in elections. The Russian government has nothing but contempt for a rules based world order. Why, suddenly, is the US cowering back when the stakes are much higher and its direct involvement much lower?
  - clivestaples 2y ago
    I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight? I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.
    - picafrost 2y ago
      It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out? The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.
      - clivestaples 2y ago
        War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.
robwwilliams 2y ago
Not just a large fraction of US citizens, but essential all Republican “leaders”.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Glad this video of Rubio making an impassioned speech about how "the credibility of America is on the line" when it comes to defending Ukraine has resurfaced: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marco-rubio-zelensky-putin-trump-ukraine-b2708377.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... The complete collapse of the Republican party into one man's personality cult, any scintilla of principle be damned, is definitely not something I wouldn't have predicted 25 years ago.
deactivatedexp 2y ago
hmm what does game theory say about the situation? right from wrong is not applicable to this situation not even one bit
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
arandomusername 2y ago
> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.
- WinstonSmith84 2y ago
  Yes they did (with Russia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... > ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.... And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time > While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
- kdavis 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
mlinhares 2y ago
> Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse. Most important piece here, don't despair, protect your people, build mutual aid communities with your neighbors and friends, there is no one coming to save us but ourselves.
ssssvd 2y ago
Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow. After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.
- palata 2y ago
  > though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. That the US and the UK (and obviously Russia) did not honour, did they?
  - ssssvd 2y ago
    It had been honoured — or at least not directly violated — for 20 years. And in international affairs, 20 years is "forever." Between 1918 and 1938, how many treaties were signed, broken, rewritten, and ignored by how many powers?
    - palata 2y ago
      I'll keep that in mind next time I sign a contract: "I commit to honouring it until I don't".
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Man so many American's about to be relieved they can stop honoring their 30 year mortgagee.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    It has been honored by the US and UK. The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.
pqtyw 2y ago
> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense. Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc. Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...
- Vilian 2y ago
  You forget that development and nuclear power knowledge comes from Ukraine, so they had nukes and were direct involved on it's creation if wasn't created by them
  - pqtyw 2y ago
    You forget that Britain and Canada also directly participated in the Manhattan project. Then they were locked out by Truman in 1945 and it took them another 7 years to develop their own nukes. It's just not that simple or straightforward. Ukraine might have been in much better spot in some ways (they actually had functioning nukes) but in other ways it was simply infeasible politically (Russia was closer to being an "ally" than and adversary back in those days) and obviously economically unjustifiable.

clivestaples 2y ago

The war has been going on for three years with no end in sight. What's the next move? What are your ideas to defeat Russia and take back the areas they've gained since 2014?

watwut 2y ago
The thoughts are to NOT allow them to have time to rearm, get ready for another invasion, get another territory. And then again and again. That is all the peace right now would be - strategic pause so that Russia can get stronger for the next attack. Also, Trump is supporting Russia while attacking Europe, Canada, Mexico, Greenland ... . Trump talks about annexing parts of Europe (Greenland) and annexing Canada.
- robwwilliams 2y ago
  More than a maniac.
- clivestaples 2y ago
  So by continuing to send more cash and weapons, it will eventually force Russia to retreat? I'm trying to understand what would secure victory.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Prevent further expansion and besides, yes, they are attritioning. Or were before they found new supporter and ally in the form of America. Like common, Trump is not just stoping to send arms. He is doing everything he can to weaken west and empowers Russia.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What's the next move? Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy. There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy. This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Surely we can all see this logic for the farce that it is. Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war and it’s only with massive international support that they’re able to maintain the fragile stalemate they now find themselves in.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2 Hitler argued that he lost WWII because external powers were limiting the Nazis through diplomatic channels?! (Also, since when do we care about how Hitler justified things?) > Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war A significant amount of Russia’s naval and air assets were vulnerable to Ukrainian drone and missile fire in ‘22. > it’s only with massive international support You mean like the American Revolution, WWI for the Allies, WWII for the Allies and the Cold War for Europe?
  - watwut 2y ago
    > This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.
    - Tainnor 2y ago
      Well yes. But he also claimed that Poland had attacked first.
erentz 2y ago
Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position. They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.
- deactivatedexp 2y ago
  what do they get by supporting russia? would love some data
  - kdmtctl 2y ago
    If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Give them the tools they need to finish the job. This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.
- clivestaples 2y ago
  That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.
  - m4rtink 2y ago
    Not arbitrarily stopping intel sharing and - reportedly - remotely disabling supplied wepons (!!) would be a good first step. Like if you ever want anyone to give you a single dolar for your weapons in the future.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - mopsi 2y ago
    The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction. Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them. Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy. The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives. It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.
robwwilliams 2y ago
Help them win it. Like we did in two world wars in the 20th century. Here in the 21st century we get off easy and just provide material support, and intelligence; not blood. Hell of a deal to defend democracy.
- deactivatedexp 2y ago
  why not lead the way and go join the fight? you never know you might inspire people to join voluntarily
  - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
    Ah the we should improve society somewhat meme in the flesh.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  US helped Russia win in the second world war. You want them to do that again?
- clivestaples 2y ago
  We've been doing that. What more do you suggest we do?
azan_ 2y ago
Letting Russia keep the territories they control now is a great way to ensure that in few years when they rebuild their military potential they will attack again.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  It also signals wars of conquest are back. That’s a message that will also be heard by revanchists in Beijing and New Delhi and expansionists in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and D.C.
picafrost 2y ago
The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader. Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatening nuclear weapons. They disregard all negotiated agreements and treaties, poison dissidents in countries the US is allied with, with impunity, engage in asymmetric warfare against Europe and the US, meddle in elections. The Russian government has nothing but contempt for a rules based world order. Why, suddenly, is the US cowering back when the stakes are much higher and its direct involvement much lower?
- clivestaples 2y ago
  I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight? I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.
  - picafrost 2y ago
    It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out? The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.
    - clivestaples 2y ago
      War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.

robwwilliams 2y ago

Not just a large fraction of US citizens, but essential all Republican “leaders”.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Glad this video of Rubio making an impassioned speech about how "the credibility of America is on the line" when it comes to defending Ukraine has resurfaced: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marco-rubio-zelensky-putin-trump-ukraine-b2708377.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... The complete collapse of the Republican party into one man's personality cult, any scintilla of principle be damned, is definitely not something I wouldn't have predicted 25 years ago.

deactivatedexp 2y ago

hmm what does game theory say about the situation? right from wrong is not applicable to this situation not even one bit

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

arandomusername 2y ago

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.

WinstonSmith84 2y ago
Yes they did (with Russia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... > ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.... And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time > While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]
- arandomusername 2y ago
  > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
kdavis 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- arandomusername 2y ago
  > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

mlinhares 2y ago

> Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse. Most important piece here, don't despair, protect your people, build mutual aid communities with your neighbors and friends, there is no one coming to save us but ourselves.

ssssvd 2y ago

Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow. After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.

palata 2y ago
> though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. That the US and the UK (and obviously Russia) did not honour, did they?
- ssssvd 2y ago
  It had been honoured — or at least not directly violated — for 20 years. And in international affairs, 20 years is "forever." Between 1918 and 1938, how many treaties were signed, broken, rewritten, and ignored by how many powers?
  - palata 2y ago
    I'll keep that in mind next time I sign a contract: "I commit to honouring it until I don't".
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Man so many American's about to be relieved they can stop honoring their 30 year mortgagee.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  It has been honored by the US and UK. The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.

pqtyw 2y ago

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense. Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc. Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...

Vilian 2y ago
You forget that development and nuclear power knowledge comes from Ukraine, so they had nukes and were direct involved on it's creation if wasn't created by them
- pqtyw 2y ago
  You forget that Britain and Canada also directly participated in the Manhattan project. Then they were locked out by Truman in 1945 and it took them another 7 years to develop their own nukes. It's just not that simple or straightforward. Ukraine might have been in much better spot in some ways (they actually had functioning nukes) but in other ways it was simply infeasible politically (Russia was closer to being an "ally" than and adversary back in those days) and obviously economically unjustifiable.