Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.
If they get used it is obviously really going to be a bad time for all but one thing in their favour is that the prevailing wind goes from west to east.
Yep.
The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.
Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.
Nuclear programs need a lot more leadtime than that, that’s why if Biden had balls he’d give them some of ours before it’s too late
I think nuclear deterant is the only thing that has a chance of working for countries that aren’t military super powers, and even military super powers have them for a reason. And a country having to rely on benevolence of other countries leaves too many things to chance for nations that wish to be sovereign.
Are you implying that russia is a military super power? Their performance in ukraine has shown they are a paper tiger with a few nukes up their sleeve from back when the soviet union was actually a major player.
Compared to Ukraine yes, and they have a lot more people to throw at the meat wave
The irony is that Ukraine had “the bomb”, but the US and its allies promised to protect them if they gave it up. Oops.
The US and Russia. Ya know, the Russia that’s murdering, rapping, and torturing Ukrainians and claiming they shouldn’t exist like genocide
It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.
This is like saying that Germany has the right to keep the American nukes stationed on its soil if the US was to ever leaver Germany.
The soviet bombs were built, operated and guarded by a Russian department of the Russian Republic member of the Soviet union. what Ukraine signed on was a smooth repatriation of those nukes back to Russian. there is no real way Ukraine could have confiscated them even if they tried.
Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?
Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn’t happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else’s breach.
That’s my understanding. Furthermore, they had the nuclear weapons of the soviet union. Even if they could maintain them at the time, without much of the infrastructure that the soviet Union had, I think legally they were Moscow’s. Moscow held the metaphorical button, if not the physical one. Similar to US nuclear weapons in Germany aren’t controlled by Berlin.
That being said, I think this whole war has lead to a situation where nuclear armament is very appealing, not just to Kyiv but to many of the similar states looking on. It is again, for world peace we need less nukes in the world, for Ukraine’s sovereign safety, they need (more) nukes.
That’s the lesson here… They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.
Zero benefit to the people
No protection, just non-agression. That was violated by russia.
"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
:::
Thanks for adding another source with some more context
From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords
(1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states
That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn’t actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.
And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should’ve included something akin to Article 5
Russia would have never signed on to that. Their whole argument about Ukraine is the constant advancement of NATO territories towards its border.
wow Putin’s bitch stopping aid to Ukraine? never could’ve seen this coming.
no kidding though, it took a while but Russia finally did it. they are the superpower now. good news, Europe!
Russia’s side of Ukraine owning them was broken
???
“In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.”
I don’t think it would serve any purpose unless they plan to use it, in which case no they should not. They’re going to have enough on their hands just keeping the orcs at bay until somebody takes out Putin.
To me this is the same philosophy adopted by Israel when they kill Hamas leaders. This isn’t chess, folks. Killing the king does not end the game.
Name one time since Hitler that the death of a world leader has resulted in the end of an armed international conflict.
Do it. Promises from super powers are worthless. Only power itself matters. And all the other countries are aware of it too now.
Yeah, countries will prioritize self preservation and will gladly let even their allies get destroyed to survive. Can’t trust anyone but themselves. Everyone else is just posturing when it is convenient for them.
Ukraine needs to go away. They’re just as corrupt, if not more so, than Russia. The last thing they need is a nuke.
Piss off.
No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.
Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??
The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?
In theory, I agree. Nuclear weaponry should never exist. The power to erase millions of people with a single push of a button is absolute insanity.
In practice, the world isn’t going to suddenly decide to de-arm itself and dismantle every nuke. So if they aren’t giving up theirs, refusing to make my own over that just leaves me another corpse on the moral high road.
Sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place had the Manhattan project been sabotaged by the scientists and nuclear weapons were deemed unfeasible. I’d like to think so.
It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?
People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.
They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!
I don’t like this chapter of Alice in Wonderland but the writing is good
That video taught me that Project Sundial should have gone ahead.
Thanks. This is the only reasonable reply in here.
People are such fucking military industrial complex tech bro lemmings on world.
Who’s going to supply them with uranium and parts? The French? lol
There’s really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It’s one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment’s notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.
I think that’s enough internet for today
OK now do Iran
No Islamic country should ever have WMDs.
Least islamaphobic liberal.
I know nothing about the subject but doesn’t it require a massive infrastructure investment and time that Ukraine can’t afford right now? I mean even Zaporizhzhia is controlled by the invaders, though I’m not sure if it’s there where they would produce fissile materials. Furthermore, Ukraine’s remaining allies are staunch anti-nuclear proliferation.
I don’t think they have much of a choice at this point. And yes, I’d support it. They clearly should’ve never agreed to the Budapest Memorandum with its half hearted security guarantees.
