Ukraine Warns It May Go Nuclear - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15167522
Yup, it seems one of the forum members was correct, Ukraine is warning that it might have to go nuclear given the security threat Russia poses and to assure it's security. I wonder what Moscow thinks of this?

Oren Dorell of the USA Today wrote:Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY.

The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact "to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

"We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

His statements come as Russia raised the possibility it may send its troops beyond the Crimean peninsula on the Black Sea into the eastern half of Ukraine.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said lawlessness "now rules in eastern regions of Ukraine as a result of the actions of fighters of the so-called 'right sector' with the full connivance" of Ukraine's authorities.

Rizanenko and others in Ukraine say the pact it made with the United States under President Bill Clinton was supposed to prevent such Russian invasions.

The pact was made after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and became Russia, leaving the newly independent nation of Ukraine as the world's third largest nuclear weapons power.

The communist dictatorship that was the Soviet Union had based nuclear missiles in republics it held captive along its border with Europe, and Ukraine had thousands. World powers urged Ukraine to give up the arsenal but its leaders balked, expressing fear they needed the weapons to deter Russia from trying to reverse Ukraine's independence.

To reassure the Ukrainians, the United States and leaders of the United Kingdom and Russia signed in 1994 the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" in which the signatories promised that none of them would threaten or use force to alter the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.


They specifically pledged not to militarily occupy Ukraine. Although the pact was made binding according to international law, it said nothing that requires a nation to act against another that invades Ukraine.

The memorandum requires only that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments." Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear warheads in return for the promise.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... r/6250815/
#15167525
Deterrence works. The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead agrees.

"If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea," he writes. "It gave up its nukes, got worthless paper guarantees, and also got an invasion from a more powerful and nuclear neighbour."

He cites Libya as another example of a nation that negotiated away its nuclear programme only to sacrifice its security.

"The choice here could not be more stark," he writes. "Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped."
#15167527
Politics_Observer wrote:Deterrence works. The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead agrees.

"If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea," he writes. "It gave up its nukes, got worthless paper guarantees, and also got an invasion from a more powerful and nuclear neighbour."

He cites Libya as another example of a nation that negotiated away its nuclear programme only to sacrifice its security.

"The choice here could not be more stark," he writes. "Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped."


I guess this proves Iran's desires to gain nukes. :eek:

Off topic.. sorry
#15167528
@Rancid

I think it does. Iran sees it the same way as well. It's naive to think that giving up your nukes will keep you safe. Ukraine made a big mistake.They would still have their land if they hadn't given up their nuclear weapons. Heck they had the third largest arsenal at the time they gave it up and there were Ukrainian politicians at the time warning that was a mistake. It seems they were right. Maybe the Ukrainians will try to rearm with nuclear weapons now. The lesson most certainly isn't lost on me. I do believe in a rules based international order but I don't see it as realistic given there is no way to really enforce it. It's the law of the jungle out there where might is right. It would be nice if it wasn't that way, but that's the way it is. It's prison rules out there.
#15167537
Politics_Observer wrote:Yup, it seems one of the forum members was correct, Ukraine is warning that it might have to go nuclear given the security threat Russia poses and to assure it's security. I wonder what Moscow thinks of this?





What Moscow thinks? "Oh Really! I am gonna sit quietly by while my troublesome neighbour builds himself nukes with Moscow, Smolensk, Volgograd, St Petersburg scrawled all over them!".

I believe it is all a cry for help. The bear has Kiev in a chokehold. No power can pry Kiev loose. Ukraine just has to come to some new living arrangements on Moscow's terms.

It is also an indication of how far Kiev has lost grasp with realities. A nuclear armed Ukraine is not in the interests of Miss Europe either. Why would the lady in Berlin care for a nuclear standoff that close to her? Ukraine may have skipped USSR Breakup 101. The reason America and Europe opted for Russia to inherit the Soviet arsenal was to avoid exactly what Ukraine is proposing. The world was safer with all Soviet nukes in one hand than each ex Soviet Socialist Republic inheriting enough of the arsenal to be a threat to the whole of Europe, not just Moscow.
#15167539
Politics_Observer wrote:Deterrence works. The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead agrees.

"If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea," he writes. "It gave up its nukes, got worthless paper guarantees, and also got an invasion from a more powerful and nuclear neighbour."

He cites Libya as another example of a nation that negotiated away its nuclear programme only to sacrifice its security.

"The choice here could not be more stark," he writes. "Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped."






Correction is timely, I think, to a narrative that is not totally correct, but which has persevered for lack of challenge. Ukraine never owned nukes. That be like saying the nukes at Minot Airforce Base, N Dakota belong to the State of N Dakota. No, they don't. They belong to the Federal Government of the United States of America. The relationship between the defunct Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Soviet Union is like that between the State of N Dakota and the United States. Federal property located in individual states do not belong to the individual states.

With that aside one can say the question that had to be addressed as the Soviet Union collapsed was whether its huge arsenal of nukes be divided up among the resulting countries or whether the ex Russian Soviet Socialist Republic retained all of them.

Wisely, all western powers involved, the US in particular, deemed it safer for the good of every one if the ex Russian Soviet Socialist Republic retained them all. Far easier to deal with one nuclear armed country than a seething mass of ex Soviet Socialist Republics at each others throats, or for that matter at the throats of others as well.

Should Armenia also have inherited its share of nukes from the crumbling Soviet Union? And who would the nuclear armed, independent Armenia have immediately directed its nukes at? Turkey, a Nato member.

I believe it is naive to believe the Soviet nukes in the hands of each of the independent ex Soviet Republics would have been directed only at Russia.
#15167541
Politics_Observer wrote:Deterrence works. The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead agrees.

"If Ukraine still had its nukes, it would probably still have Crimea," he writes. "It gave up its nukes, got worthless paper guarantees, and also got an invasion from a more powerful and nuclear neighbour."

He cites Libya as another example of a nation that negotiated away its nuclear programme only to sacrifice its security.

"The choice here could not be more stark," he writes. "Keep your nukes and keep your land. Give up your nukes and get raped."

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the US unelected permanent establishment cannot be trusted. This is what a lot of people have concluded.
#15167572
@Juin

Well, I tell you what, since Russia and the US started upgrading and modernizing their nuclear weapons Turkey has been talking about acquiring nuclear weapons and also citing the fact that Israel has them so why can't they have them too? With Turkey talking about getting nuclear weapons, Greece might follow. Pakistan and India have them and haven't directly fought each other since they both got them. North Korea has them. The point is, the major powers like Russia, the United States and China set the example and the tone for the rest of the world. These three countries have a leadership role to play and an example to set to the rest of the world. People take notice when the major, stronger powers like Russia and the U.S. do not respect the rights of smaller countries and don't engage in nuclear weapons reduction and disarmament.

China has nukes and has been threatening it's neighbors, when will those neighbors decide they need nukes to protect themselves? Australia can certainly build nukes if it wants to, I guarantee you that and they are not exactly thrilled about Chinese expansionism in the Pacific. So, with the "Big 3" not setting the example (Russia, US and China) on nuclear weapons, what will other countries do? Well, I'll tell you what they will do, they will go and develop their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from bigger stronger countries.

They want their rights respected just like the "Big 3" want their rights respected. What gives right of the "Big 3" to violate the rights of the smaller countries? The "Big 3" do it all the time though and don't set the example on nuclear weapons proliferation and so others will seek to acquire those weapons to protect themselves and they are smart to do quite frankly speaking, given that world is governed by "might makes right" and "law of the jungle" rather than the genuine rule of law.
#15167600
@Pants-of-dog

I agree, deterrence, especially nuclear deterrence when you are a smaller country works. Libya gave up it's nuclear program and what happened to Libya? Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal and now they have lost their land to Russia. I am sure other countries are taking notice and learning the lesson.
#15167609
@Pants-of-dog

What Iran does, as long as it doesn't threaten anybody, is Iran's business. However, if Iran threatens somebody, then that's a problem. I am not a fan of the mullahs in Iran, but I can certainly see their point of view of why they would want nuclear weapons when they see other powers have them. The United States has not been innocent either in it's relations with Iran.
#15167612
@Politics_Observer

It seems your problem is military aggression. Perhaps the answer is simpler than we thought: the citizens of belligerent countries should force their governments to stop invading other countries.
#15167616
@Pants-of-dog

It's easier said than done discouraging your government from invading another country without a very good reason. For example, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because of the attack on our soil on 9/11. We needed to protect ourselves from an attack. However, I did not agree with the Iraq invasion. Sometimes the government is going to do what it's going to do despite citizen objections and despite the fact government is engaging in very bad policy. You can protest and go to the voting booth to vote for candidates that won't support an unjustified invasion but there is no guarantee your candidate will win or the government will change it's policy. There is only so much people can do. And you still have to live under your government and it's laws.
#15167619
@Pants-of-dog

Yeah I am definitely opposed to outright military aggression or aggressive warfare whether it be my government or any government really. And I recognize my government hasn't always been innocent in the past. Few governments have really. I have learned through first hand experience that war is very very serious business and no joke at all and is terrible. But people with power start these wars and the small fish like me or the rest of us, pay the price. But sometimes wars are unavoidable it seems though I think in most cases they are preventable and avoidable. In many cases, people with power start preventable or un-necessary wars or invasions or engage in bad policy that make wars more possible. These people do not pay the price for the wars and invasions and hence either do not understand the true consequences of their policies or actions or simply do not care because they are not the ones who pay the price or they just made bad decisions or are incompetent.
#15167631
Or it could just lead to having more military participation in politics. I don't think that would really solve the issue.

I think it's reasonable to assume that, since nuclear weapons technology exists, it will be possible to implement at a lower cost sooner or later. And that means more states will be able to produce them.
#15167645
@wat0n

I am strongly opposed to military participation in politics. There is no place for the military in politics and the military needs to remain firmly and unquestionably under civilian control. I agree, more people will be able to produce nuclear energy and weapons here in modern times and in the future. I am assuming the major powers will seek to prevent other countries form obtaining the material to build nuclear weapons but something tells me there is a way around everything and countries and heck maybe even terrorist organizations will be able to get the material if they really want it. Especially nation states.

more than possible, ask experts i can give facebo[…]

May 7, Thursday President Lincoln and General […]

Do understand how consent legally works? Because t[…]

How was Korea unjust? How was WW2 unjust? Cold […]