Ukraine conflict

Quote: Tanko

Ukrainian parliament member says Biden’s SOTU was ‘a total disappointment’ for Ukraine

"We had been promised the protection by the international community. We gave up our nuclear weapons.

?????
WTF
1 person
Gee a member does not like Biden
Why not cut to the chase and say I'm Tanko, I'm a member here that does not like Biden.

Maybe they should have kept the nukes until NATO accepted them as a member.

Quote: missedhervee

Maybe they should have kept the nukes until NATO accepted them as a member.

They gave up nukes in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., Russia, France, and the U.K.

This is why the narrative (lie) Russia keeps pushing that they have illegal nuclear weapons is so important, because it gives Russia license to break the agreement (even though Putin claims its invalid to begin with).


https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/why-ukraine-gave-up-its-nuclear-arsenal-7797562/

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance, signed on December 5, 1994, sealed Ukraine’s membership in the NPT and its status as a non-nuclear country in return for security assurances. The signatories were the presidents of Ukraine (Leonid Kuchma), the US (Bill Clinton), Russia (Boris Yeltsin), and the British Prime Minister (John Major). Later, China and France, who became NPT members in 1992, also became signatories. "


Unfortunately, its also not that binding by saying "assurances" not guarantees as this 2019 article gets into:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/

I feel the most bad for the people of Ukraine, who have tried to do the right thing, its kind of dammed-if-you-do, dammed-if-you-don't scenario, give up your weapon for a hope of peace and the promise (assurance) of security from "allies", or keep your weapons for protection and have everyone hate you (and probably suffer sanctions, etc...). I think most people think giving up the Nukes was probably wise at the time, but nobody saw Putin coming back then. And, now the twisted irony is that Russia is invading because of the claims of Nukes anyway.

The only party who is in the wrong is Russia. No sane person should be supporting their invasion regardless of what you think of prior deals. Ukraine just wants to live in peace, and they have made endless concessions already.

Along the same lines

Quote:

Unclear Physics: Why Iraq and Libya failed to build nuclear weapons, I explore why Libya and Iraq did not acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq’s program was interrupted by the 1991 Gulf War as it stood on the threshold of a breakthrough, whereas Libya dismantled its failing program in late 2003 after reaching an agreement with the U.S. and the U.K.

Lessons from the Iraqi and Libyan programs and their outcomes are hotly disputed. Recently, North Korean officials pointed to these cases to justify the rapid advances of their own nuclear weapons program, arguing that the fates of Saddam and Gaddafi demonstrate that abandoning a nuclear weapons program can lead to disaster. Iranian officials have made similar statements.

While the Libyan decision to dismantle the nuclear weapons program was initially lauded as a new model for negotiated counter-proliferation, it was clear even before 2011—when a popular uprising backed by Western powers toppled the Gaddafi regime—that other states would be reluctant to follow Libya’s example. As I discovered in interviews with Libyan officials less than two years after the deal was announced, many had come to regret their decision.

The officials I interviewed in Libya during 2005 and 2006 felt cheated and humiliated. Many expressed frustration with the limited economic benefits from the deal, which did not spark the broader economic revitalization many officials had hoped for. They chafed at being treated as second-class participants in international fora despite having voluntarily abandoned the program to reintegrate back into the international community.

Until the day, nuclear weapons can successfully be defended against, it’s the only real hole card for small countries besides an alliance.

Quote: kenarman

The reason that the NATO response has been so muted is they are dependent on Russia for their energy needs. The EU countries have merrily gone about destroying their own energy production capabilities in the name of climate change, that is what happens when you become enamored with a young girl called Greta. Have they been reducing carbon? No they have replaced this shutdown of their own generation with imports from Russia.

"Germany currently gets about half of its natural gas and coal from Russia, and a third of its oil. Allies such as the United States have long warned that the heavy reliance of Europe's biggest economy on Russia energy imports is a strategic risk given the growing friction with Moscow."

These imports can't be replaced easily or fast and Germany has no intention of stopping these imports and freeze in the dark. Americans don't need to feel smug about this since Biden has created the same situation in the US when he shut down large sectors of the US industry in the name of climate change. This production was replaced with Russian oil. Biden is not shutting down the import of this oil. So much for significant sanctions, Russia has made the west dependent on Russian carbon.

You are spot on regarding Europe. Not so much with USA. Russian crude oil made up 3% of us imported oil in 2021 and dropping. However US sanctions must be in solidarity with Europe. Sanctions on oil would also be inflationary. In spite of oil and gas not being covered, the sanctions against Russian banks including their central bank may have a big impact. Maybe it's not the worst thing to leave Russia a lifeline. Completely crushing the Russian economy might make Vlad desperate enough to do the unthinkable.

Obrador, Mexico's leftist leader, refuses to impose any sanctions against Russia.

We should sanction Mexico.

Quote: missedhervee

Obrador, Mexico's leftist leader, refuses to impose any sanctions against Russia.

We should sanction Mexico.

They still haven’t even paid for our nonexistent wall. :(

I find it odd that no one is suggesting we can cut buying Russian oil for a month or two or maybe three. Suggesting the only choice is to upend energy policy completely for years to come is unnecessary.

As long as people can agree to suck it up. And if we're able to supply areas that need it most. Rationing if necessary.

People had to sacrifice to beat Hitler. If people want to do more, that's required. Probably make life harder here for a while.

Now if there's support to send in our own troops as well, that really changes it up. No telling what the actual risk will be.