He's just checking on his investment....
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
430 points (99.8% liked)
News
23771 readers
5192 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gotta test the beds at the White House to make sure they're soft enough for Big Daddy Vlad.
load more comments
(2 replies)
NATO officials who fear a deal that could harm Kyiv and alter NATO’s eastern border dynamics.
And why do they think Ukraine would agree to such a deal?
load more comments
(7 replies)
Biden needs to transfer to Ukraine a nuke right now to provide some M.A.D. insurance. If he doesn't, I worry Trump will look the other way completely should Russia escalate with tactical ones or worse.
Edit: Guys, please educate yourselves on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory. The point is deterrence through mutual destruction, which effectively worked during the Cold War.
EDIT: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
Because Republicans with Trump gained full control of the US, effectively all geopolitical support is going to drop off for Ukraine over the next 4 years. It is imperative that Ukraine be given leverage ahead of this transition.
If nukes start flying we all lose.
We'll all burn together when we burn.
Funny you say that, I’m burning one right now 🌳
Of course. That's why I advise we provide Ukraine with a nuke and warn Russia that if they try to utilize nukes against Ukraine, then Moscow will be targeted by Ukraine themselves.
Again: MAD Theory. Deterrence.
Edit: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
UK has stated that if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, there will be a symmetrical response.
Edit:
And a promise is basically all the defense Ukraine has, just like they were promised both non aggression from Russia, and protection from USA, when they gave up their nukes 20 years ago.
Promises are worth zilch, just like when Hitler promised Chamberlain peace. Some things never change, especially when dealing with crazy dictators.
One would hope, but those are mere promises. When the time comes, doing is far different than saying. If we're already committed that far and we already support Ukraine to those ends, then let's cut out the middle man and give Ukraine such missiles themselves where they may be utilized immediately without hesitation. And of course, that's a certainty Putin can be assured of.
I 100% agree, and as it is now, this is all the defense Ukraine has from a nuclear attack.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’m of Russian Jewish descent but my family has been in America since 1907.
You’re getting downvoted because most of the world thinks increasing nuclear risk is bad. Because it is!
If there were an easy way to end this conflict it would of happened by now. But I’m not interested in nuclear war and MAD only works when both sides are sane. Does anyone look sane right now on either side?!
Also if Russia uses nukes they’ll get a nato nuke response. What’s the point of putting nukes in Ukraine? We can end the whole world in like 30 minutes if we’re fucking dumb enough.
But I’m not interested in nuclear war and MAD only works when both sides are sane. Does anyone look sane right now on either side?!
Herein lies the ill-logic of your belief set. You're not really exploring the Game Theory, here.
IF both sides are not sane (Putin), then it still stands as a credible argument to arm the sane side (Zelenskyy), for like you said, what is stopping insanity from attacking a defenseless victim? After all, through time immemorial the bully targets the defenseless, but second-guesses when they can get smacked back.
Moreover your argument only holds water under the false assumption that the insane doesn't yet have nukes either... But in this instance they of course already do.
What we DO KNOW about authoritarian tyrants like Putin — as exemplified by his extremely long table during COVID — is that they are terrified of death and seek not to be a ruler of rubble. Thus, when Putin sees that Zelenskyy has unilateral power to launch a retaliatory strike against Moscow, then that would indeed cause even the insane psychopath to reconsider. After all, what else is lost? Absolutely nothing.
This isn't a fucking game. Stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine would literally lead to ww3.
I see a curious and complete lack of substantive response after I already elucidated with Game Theory (That you equate this to "game" suggests you don't actually understand what Game Theory is) the options at hand.
Ergo, my point still remains wholly intact.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
There are plenty of nuclear weapons close to Ukraine that can very easily and quickly be launched if whatever necessary scenario I can't come up with that would require a nuclear weapon happens.
The UK currently has 120 of their 225 nuclear weapons deployed and France currently has 290 of their 280 deployed and Putin is well aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
For the same exact reason that all those surrounding nations aren't committing their own forces to the defense of Ukraine is the exact same reason why providing Ukraine itself with a nuke as a deterrent to Russia's use is essential.
Yes, other nations surrounding Ukraine have nukes. However, the odds are much higher that should Russia use nukes on Ukraine that all the surrounding nations would furrow their eyebrows heavily and condemn the attacks but ultimately do nothing because they want to contain the damage to Ukraine. Chamberlains everywhere would simply reiterate, "This is a tragic day for the world, but we cannot risk a greater conflict." Meanwhile Tump, of course, would look the other way and seek to undermine any substantive NATO response at every turn.
To reemphasize my point that many seem to have missed: This is about giving the actual victim — Ukraine — agency to defend itself directly from a nuclear threat. I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.
Ukraine acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Ukraine
Yep, the Budapest Memorandum. Prior to the current government and contingent, of course, on Russia providing Ukraine with sovereignty and security assurances from (as source notes), UK, US, and Russia.
Naturally, Russia reneged on their side of the agreement.
I agree, but many are like:
Oh no 😱, that would be crossing a Russian read line! 🤮
Man I hate this argument, Russia only respect one thing, and that is strength. And Putin is insane, he is gambling with extremely high stakes, and has upped the stakes consistently for years now.
All the pearl clutching people are doing, is only helping Russia.
Exactly. I say fuck Putin's red line and give Ukraine nukes to deter Russia unilaterally.
If surrounding nations are unwilling to commit conventional ground forces or establish a No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine for risk of escalation, can we really count on them to respond effectively should tactical nukes or worse be used by Russia against Ukraine? I think not.
load more comments
(13 replies)
Yes, but there could easily be doubt those would be used to defend Ukraine, and make whatever country using them a Russian nuclear target.
If Ukraine has their own, it's a way more obvious defense for Ukraine, and Russia will know for sure they can't use nukes without retaliation with nukes.