Vailliant

"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.

In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.

In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.

For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance

:::

Yeah lets blame the voters, not the candidates for not exciting the voter base with actual solutions for issues

You dont like voting third party/not voting, yet you would frame me as your opponent...Nice framing. I haven't said I disagree or agree with it. Not everything is so black and white as you may see it.

All I said was is that I don't like seeing the same posts appear X times on political Memes every day.

And what I think is disengenious is the way you frame it. To frame my statement as such that I support not voting/ voting third party.

Every single time I open Lemmy I see at least 5 posts about " voting third party bad" it is not much different from reddit during the 2016/2020 campaign. How it is run now I wouldnt know because I havent browsed reddit since 2023.

Even political Memes are generally lighthearted and people dont fight as much in the comments compared to reddit.

That is so disengenious and you know it...

I feel at this point the majority of content on this sub is not funny or a meme anymore. While I don't agree with Trump at this point Lemmy is becoming "astroturfed" like reddit

You can probably buy this at a resale place. My SO's company sells this throughout Europe. Even in the UK

I have some close to expiry sitting at home, thats how I know...

Alarm clock ringing

Storing solar and wind isnt cheap enough. The battery costs are outrageous, not to mention the thing you dont want: the materials Arent easy renewable. Nuclear can generate 30% of you base powerload while the rest is powered by solar and wind (that way you dont need coal of gas).

Storing electricity from wind/solar with hydrogen isnt efficiënt and would drive up energy prices just like with batteries

A "five by ten" I would say, doesnt sound to bad.

I think its mostly ingrained into the population at this point.

Thank you kind sir!