Here's the actual article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/us/politics/trump-russia-ukraine-war.htmlHere's the text, in context:
Quote:
The one gold-standard security guarantee that Ukraine wants is an invitation to join NATO. But it could not get that under Mr. Biden, and an invitation is unlikely during Mr. Trump's presidency.
So U.S. and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.
Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.
Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defense minister, said in an interview that for a successful cease-fire, Ukraine and its allies must reverse the momentum on the front line to set conditions for talks.
Ukraine must also have sufficient firepower in reserve to deter any cease-fire violations, he said, for example with an arsenal of longer-range weaponry to inflict immediate damage if Russia resumes hostilities.
NOWHERE does it say the things you keep claiming.
1. There is no specification of whether these officials are American or European
2. There's no specification on what these officials do or who they report to. Are they administration officials who have direct input on policy discussions and decisions, or are they analysts or advisors whose job is to simply explore what options are possible and what their outcomes might be?
3. There is no indication of whether this is a legitimate, serious policy consideration or simply a possibility being discussed with all others, no matter how remote.
4. There is no indication of whether these are official policy considerations or simply the opinion of these unnamed officials.
Sure, some officials may have suggested it, but they may or may not be American, they may or may not have been serious policy suggestions, and they may or may not have been merely opinions. That's is a very far cry from, "Joe Biden giving Ukraine nukes?"
And then your other tweets about, "Headlines about Joe Biden considering the return of nuclear weapons to Ukraine," are also making mountains out of molehills. The headline on the article is, "Trump's Vow to End the War Could Leave Ukraine With Few Options." None of that is mentioned in the headline. In fact, the first mention of the possibility is in the 28th(!) paragraph of 32, and it is mentioned exactly once. It would seem that such claims might be just a little overblown.
If you could be bothered to go beyond just reading an out of context snippet and inaccurate summary and instead read an actual source
critically, then maybe you'd see that the article in that tweet does not say what that tweet says it does. And if you could do
that instead of waving away the quite obvious stretching of the truth in that tweet, then maybe you'd see "LordBeebo" for what it actually is.
But you can't, and you won't. Why? Because it tells you everything you want to hear, and that's the only thing you're interested in listening to.
