10 ms·
It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine, judging by the last article I read that gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept
by hardlianotion 11mo ago
It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine, judging by the last article I read that gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept the latest peace deal negotiated between USA and Russia.
If we are in the world you describe, EU might as well do as it wants - its downside has been capped.
- delichon 11mo ago> It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine It would be a major blow to Ukraine if the US stops selling weapons to them via European buyers. There is a real threat of this if Trump feels the need to coerce Ukraine into supporting his peace plan.
- hardlianotion 11mo agoI believe this is what is implied by the Thursday deadline. Article certainly implies this.
- sfifs 11mo agoI'm very surprised the US doesn't seem to be taking the risk of Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Weapons state seriously. By now, they surely would have had time to develop get to the brink of weaponization as a backup plan - they've after all always had a nuclear industry. If they do so and offer cover to their neighbors who realize NATO may not be sufficient, we are in for interesting times.
- immibis 11mo agoUkraine WAS a nuclear weapons state, until the US agreed to protect them from Russia with the US's nuclear weapons, if they gave up their own.
- insane_dreamer 11mo agoWhat actually happened to the nukes the Ukrainians had? Were they transferred to the US? Destroyed?
- throw-the-towel 11mo agoThose were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. The ones in Ukraine got moved into Russia, in exchange for Ukraine receiving money and security guarantees.
- insane_dreamer 11mo agoThanks. Did that happen immediately after the USSR breakup, i.e., when Yeltsin was in charge, or more recently under Putin?
- throw-the-towel 11mo agoStill under Yeltsin, 1994 I think. If you've heard about the Budapest Memorandum, that's exactly what it was about.
- guerby 11mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Signed 5 December 1994 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[10] 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (...)
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- wat10000 11mo agoThe US did not agree to protect them. The signatures to the Budapest Memorandum agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Of the signatories, Russia is the only one that has violated the agreement.
- HappyPanacea 11mo agoAre you sure about that? Wikipedia says the following: " 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. 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". Both seems to not happen as stipulated. Edit: I didn't read properly, 4 obviously didn't happen, my bad.
- floxy 11mo agoThe actual memorandum is shorter than the Wikipedia article about it. The English-language portion is literally only three pages of double spaced text. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
- Fraterkes 11mo agoI guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?
- Lapsa 11mo agoafaik Ukraine never got paid for nuclear disarmament as initially agreed - about $200 billions
- wat10000 11mo agoI wonder where people get these ideas. The Budapest Memorandum is very short, it'll take five minutes to read if you want to know what was actually agreed. It seems like people just sort of imagine what they would have agreed to, and run with it.
- SiempreViernes 11mo agoThey got paid mainly in nuclear fuel, there was some disagreement at the rate by which they got fuel in exchange for the weapons and maybe they didn't get quite all the fuel they should have, but for sure they did get paid at least partially.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 11mo agoIt wasn't. It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)
- drysine 11mo ago>Ukraine should have kept its nukes They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles. [0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missile-transfers https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles Unclear. A nuclear Kyiv would have different security incentives than a non-nuclear one.
- drysine 11mo agoUnclear? They are busy stealing hundreds of millions dollars[0] while having security incentive in form of ongoing war. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zelensky-corruption.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zele...
- immibis 11mo ago
- polski-g 11mo agoThe Senate never ratified that treaty, so no the US never agreed to so that. And the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say that anyway.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo agoThe ideal scenario would have been if Ukraine had secretly retained 30-100 warheads. Everyone likes to prattle on about how they couldn't even have used them: those people are mentally retarded. A sophisticated government with nuclear and aerospace scientists could have easily dismantled interlocks and installed their own. Maybe not in a hurry, but they had 3 decades more or less. And if they didn't have the expertise, they might have outsourced it to Taiwan for the fee of a few nukes to keep. Ukraine *desperately* needs to be a nuclear weapons state. Nothing else will suffice. They need more than one bomb, really more than three or four. Putin has to be terrified that no matter how many nuclear strikes he endures, another waits to follow. When he fears that, the war will end.
- wat10000 11mo agoThe war might end in Ukraine being flattened by Russian nuclear weapons if that happened. Putin would be backed into a corner. End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike (or just the threat of one) and he'll risk being deposed and meet a gruesome end. Retaliate overwhelmingly and risk escalation from other nuclear powers. It's not clear to me that the second risk would be worse, and definitely not clear to me that Putin wouldn't see that as the better of two bad options. As has been illustrated so well over the past few years, the power of nuclear weapons is a paradox. It allows you to make the ultimate threat. But that threat isn't credible unless people believe you'll use them. Because the consequences of using them are so severe, they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. Russia's arsenal hasn't allowed it to stop a constant flow of weapons to its enemy, an enemy which has invaded and still controls a small bit of Russian territory, and which frequently carries out aerial attacks on Russian territory. Ukraine faces much more of an existential threat (Ukraine has no prospect of conquering Russia, but the reverse is a serious possibility) so a nuclear threat from Ukraine would be more credible, but it could easily still not be enough. Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago>Putin would be backed into a corner. He'd be backed into the door marked "exit". There is no corner to trap him here. >End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike And why do you believe that Zelensky or whoever is in charge would nuke Moscow first? Do you think that, if they had say 30 nukes (plenty for a few relatively harmless demonstrations) that this would be the first target? Obviously they'd pick something that he could decide to de-escalate afterwards. >they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. You mean such as the severe threat that Ukraine has endured for a decade at this point? The war now threatens to make them functionally extinct. Many have fled and will never return, their population is reduced to something absurdly low, many of their children have been forcibly abducted to be indoctrinated or tormented/tortured. That condition you impose was pre-satisfied. >Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card. Of course not. They'd have to be used intelligently (readers: "used" does not imply detonated). It's not entirely clear to me that this would be the case with Ukraine/Zelensky. But nothing less at this point will suffice. Even if the US promised to put 150,000 troops on the ground, this wouldn't end. It would only escalate. Perhaps to that nuclear war you seem to fear.
- fatbird 11mo agoWhile US weapons aid has basically been cut off, then somewhat restored through European purchases, US intel sharing has been relatively consistent and continuous throughout, and Ukraine is very dependent on it. When intel sharing was suspended for several weeks, Ukraine lost almost half the ground it had taken in Kursk. At a minimum, satellite intel is key to monitoring Russian dispositions, and Ukraine has no way to replace that.
- dmix 11mo agoUS also authorized the use of their own ballistic missiles in Russia proper this past week which was a big deal. They also have another $1B budgeted in defense spending for Ukraine next year https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-committee-backs-more-ukraine-funding-following-trump-shift-aid-2025-07-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-committee-backs-m...
- thinkcontext 11mo agoIntelligence, targeting info and selling (no longer giving) weapons are all important support but sanctions is the really big one. The most recent round in particular has really bit into Russia's oil revenue. Of course it would be absolutely disgraceful for the US to drop sanctions on Russia and have normal relations with it while it continued its invasion. But that's what the US voted for.
- pyrale 11mo ago> Of course it would be absolutely disgraceful for the US to drop sanctions on Russia and have normal relations with it while it continued its invasion. But that's what the US voted for. The reason US sanctions Russia is because the US has been pushing its oil insustry in Europe. For instance, EU tariff deals included buying a minimum amount of hydrocarbon products: > As part of this effort, the European Union intends to procure US liquified natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy products with an expected offtake valued at $750 billion through 2028. In that context, US sanctions on Russia serve a purpose which isn't solely helping Ukraine ; I don't see the US lifting these sanctions anytime soon.
- thinkcontext 11mo agoI personally think Trump loves Russia and Putin and generally wants to do business with them. He has wanted a Trump Tower in Moscow for decades and probably still wants that to happen.
- actionfromafar 11mo agoWants to be bribed by them. But to him, bribe = business, I guess.
- anthem2025 11mo ago“Peace deal” The latest demand for Ukraine to just completely surrender.
- Y_Y 11mo agoPerhaps Ukraine could spare a few troops for a quick invasion of the West Bank?
- dybber 11mo agoMaybe the most impactful thing they could do would not be withdrawing support for Ukraine, but removing sanctions on Russia and thus boosting Russian economy.