I feel so bad for Ukraine more than Americans. The vast majority either voted for him or at least not against him. But the Ukrainians? Them developing nukes seems to be the only way out of this
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
174 points (98.3% liked)
Ukraine
8317 readers
446 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They had nukes. They got rid of them in exchange for assurances from Russia that they would leave them alone.
It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's essentially what it boils down to.
I think you got that wrong enough it warrants a correction...
They gave them up for assurances that Russia and the USA would protect them if they were attacked.
Edit: that's why the USA is giving them weapons, they're honoring the deal, or at least trying to, not 100% sure on specifics, I'm sure it was vague on what protecting them would entail.
So did you.
US agreed to bring it before the UNSC, not to protect them. Russia has veto powers.
'93 Budapest memorandum off the top of my head if anyone wants to look it up and bring the quote forward.
wiki says
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".
what assistance would that not be if not protecting them in some way or another?
Strongly worded tweets?
FWIW, my partner is Ukrainian and I asked what's the general mood in the Ukrainian circles. Apparently the unpredictability of Trump is seen as a potential positive. There was quite a lot of disillusionment about the fact that Harris would have continued with the Biden's approach focused on soft politics and weapons given drop by drop.
In fact, the general public was quite unhappy with the cautious american support. If some of the weapons were given much earlier and all at once, the war could now be going very differently.
I don't know if this is now building a narrative that doesn't make you lose hope or if it's the reality. For sure the vibe was for Harris before the elections, but it was definitely as clear cut (due to the above).
American guy here and I feel similarly. Things are going to get bad for anyone not toeing the party line here soon, but the grunts in the mud just got the worst possible news and that has to be demoralizing.
They housed plenty of nukes for the USSR but can’t build their own (yet).Even if they did it becomes a MAD standoff between them, Moscow and a Moscow friendly USA, which is fucking mind blowing after so many years of the Cold War. I think they’d be better off looking to the EU for jets and artillery to hold the line, I really fear that we’ll start to ship armor to the conscript side not the volunteers.
If they want nukes, they better get it done before January. Otherwise I can see the future where Zelenskyy is tried in a russian kangaroo court of "Possession of WMDs".
Even then, nukes from where? If we give them any then we will absolutely retain control failsafe codes and the orange administration could just not let the warheads arm.
This is referring to earlier reports that I've read that says Ukraine is supposedly attempting to build their own nuke. The USA or any nuclear country would never give a nuke to Ukraine, that would be an undeniable escalation and Putin can then justify using giving nukes to... say Belarus. Then any nukes launched by Ukraine against Russia is treated as a US attack on Russian soil, then Belarus would launch against the US. The whole point of no US troops on ground is so that US and Russia is not directly at war. US nuke gifted to Ukraine is even worse than US troops on ground, as that just WW3. In contrast, nukes built by Ukrainians themselves with zero western involvement cannot be blamed on the US (although I don't doubt Putin would try to pin the blame on "The West"). Ukraine would have to complete the nuke before trump takes office.
Because Trump is talking to Putin, not Zelensky. And the plan is “Ukraine loses”.
I'm guessing it's somewhere along the lines of "give Putin what he wants and be grateful". It also wouldn't surprise me if Zelensky isn't exiled or missing sometime next year. I hate it but I've lost all faith.
I saw this as the supposed plan:
per WSJ: It may propose delaying Ukraine's NATO membership for 20 years, establishing a 1,200 km demilitarized zone along the current front line, and leaving 20% of occupied Ukrainian territory under Russian control—while the U.S. would continue arms support under these conditions.
The problem is, this isn't an acceptable plan according to Russia. Russia has insisted that:
- Ukraine retreats from all of the oblasts that are currently partially occupied by Russia (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson) as well as giving up claims to Crimea, and Russia takes ownership of everything without a fight
- Ukraine's army is demobilized and Ukraine is demilitarized
- Ukraine is banned from joining any international organization, not just NATO (so no EU for instance)
- Ukraine receives no more military aid fro the west.
Trump is going to find out that you can't unilaterally declare peace.
Trumps plan to end the war? He's going to tell Ukraine to surrender, or the USA will nuke them.
there is no way that would make it look like nukes are going to ukraine and not to russia, so this will trigger launch of russian nukes. congratulations??
Yes. You are correct. This is called sympathetic or preemptive launch and is included in nuclear policy/strategy.
Essentially if you launch something towards the US or especially Russia and people don't believe it's not a nuke they then have to decide if they launch towards the launcher or their closest rival/enemy and those launches trigger other launches.
Most nukes are in known places in hardened bunkers or silos or better at sea in a long haul ICBM sub. If you don't use them you lose them because they're 100% gunna get destroyed if you don't.
I'm fairly sure he's got Putin in his contacts. He can just call him first and say, "Trust me bro, I got this."
(Not that I think Trump will nuke Ukraine, nor do I believe for a second that our military will allow that to happen.)
Every president has the Russian president in his contacts. It's the big red phone in the Whitehouse.
Yes but does every president have them in their phone with hearts next to their name? I don't think so.
Don't forget the thumbnails of dick pics
that'd be just as stupid as calling for airstrikes on telegram or discord. i mean, russians do it, but it's still stupid
Where do you get the idea that Trump is in any way smart?
We know from his former professors that he was dumb as shit then, and the dementia is clearly progressing quickly, we've seen it actively get worse right in front of us the last few months.
Depends on which body of water they launch from.
The plan is “fuck you”.
I can't help but feel we're fucking cooked and Europe is next
Putin certainly is.
There is concepts of a plan