deddog said:
javajaws said:
Rossticus said:
Just listened to a Ukrainian rip into Biden's sanctions as essentially useless. Punitive but will have no impact on the extant situation. Of course, we know this.
Ukraine is not without blame in this situation. They knew full well the friction it would cause with Russia when they try to cozy up to NATO. They are also to blame for not getting rid of their corruption problems and fixing their economy and military. They had it in their own power to stand on their own and make themselves defensible (as much as possible given their unenviable location).
Really, no one will cry much if Putin goes in and puts a new government in place. Not saying they deserve it...but THEY could have prevented it if they weren't such a s**t show of a country.
Tell you what.
If you ever want a shining example of why you shouldn't give up nuclear weapons, Ukraine is a great example.
It's why NKorea and Iran will never do so.
Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program, and Gaddafi was beheaded.
Iraq didn't go nuclear, and Saddam was hung.
I'd say those are more pertinent examples to states like Iran and N. Korea than Ukraine now. And they'd be right - the surest guaranty of a despot's safety from outside attack is by going nuclear.
Also Ukraine was never going to be allowed to keep the Russian nukes anymore than Belarus or Kazakhstan were. The Russians had operational control over them in that they retained the codes, not Ukraine, so they weren't a deterrent that the country could fully leverage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_AssurancesQuote:
. . .
As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons via Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.
. . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_UkraineQuote:
. . .
The United States would also not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians. . . . The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect. . . . Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies. Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia. Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program. In exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine received financial compensation, as well as the security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum.
. . .
The security assurances turned out to be worthless since the most potent one was a promise to seek UN Security Council action, but the countries got money for Russian nukes they weren't going to be allowed to keep, and that weren't functional at the time.