News Forum - Putin sends ‘peacekeeping’ troops to Ukraine after recognising breakaway regions

[oldschooler]

23 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

I can't make any sense of your last sentence. Ukraine want's to join  NATO. NATO have not acceded to that request. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Where is the lack of common sense by the Yanks and NATO?

None of that subject post makes any sense.

[JohninDublin]

Just to show my objectivity, I've just seen a a news story about the Ukrainian Foreign Minister comparing overnight shelling of Kiev, to the Nazis shelling of that same city in 1941.

Of course what he fails to mention, is that when the 1941 shelling stopped, most Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators, and about 250k joined the German Army. With hindsight being such a wonderful thing, I think the current analogy can be compared to the prostitute that only realised she'd been raped when the cheque bounced.

[butterfly]

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

There are stories today inside Russia that the President of Ukraine threated Putin after the start of the occupation of the self-declared eastern States, that when Ukraine becomes part of NATO he is going to place nuclear missiles right along the Russian border. If true and it seems likely that it is - how is that for provocation?  And since this all started the Ukraine President has been screaming the loudest and hardest that a European War and WW3 is about to start - demanding the west/NATO attack Russia is an all out war. 

That silly Ukraine President is a former comedian, he is obviously over his head, and should have kept being a stand up comedian for his daily routine, he would have been far less dangerous for the Ukrainian people.

He also probably got played diplomatically by the usual NATO and EU defense lobbyists assuring he was going to be protected from the big Russian bear if he was to join their expensive country club with the expensive toys that Ukraine will have to buy to join the club.

This is what happens when you "elect" some babbling amateur to head a nation, stupid sh*t happen.

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

The former British Ambassador to Russia has stated in the media that in his opinion the West and NATO totally ignored Putin's threats to stop. They went ahead with their plans to allow Ukraine to join NATO, despite all the warnings (from him and others) that Putin will eventually react if pushed too far. 

of course they wouldn't listen, they were testing Putin resolve. That's all there is for them, it's a power game for them.

And from Biden and other western leaders public outburst, it seems that their little power plan got derailed and they were indeed hoping to have Ukraine join NATO eventually and that plan has now failed. Hence their outburst. They couldn't care less of the Ukrainian people.

Edited February 25, 2022 by butterfly

[butterfly]

1 hour ago, JohninDublin said:

Just to show my objectivity, I've just seen a a news story about the Ukrainian Foreign Minister comparing overnight shelling of Kiev, to the Nazis shelling of that same city in 1941.

as usual, completely irrelevant, and trying to use a tangent to make a silly point

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

1 hour ago, JohninDublin said:

I can't make any sense of your last sentence. Ukraine want's to join  NATO. NATO have not acceded to that request. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Where is the lack of common sense by the Yanks and NATO?

 

I’m sure back in the day Cuba was willing and was very happy to host the Soviet’s nuclear missiles. The USA probably not as much. 

It doesn’t matter how you look at it, Russia will never allow Ukraine to join NATO, for obvious reasons.

If the Western countries care so much about Ukrainian people, they should send troops now and help them fight the Russians instead of implementing useless sanctions against Russia. Otherwise the West should stop stirring up sh**t which in the end only brings death to Ukrainians. The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO when they all knew this would never happen. 

Needless to say, that Ukraine once was the 3rd nuclear power in the world. But they were persuaded mainly by the West to give up their nukes. Do you think that if Ukraine had its nukes right now Russia would be invading? 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Lyp14 [ctxa]

[KRLMRX]

1 hour ago, JohninDublin said:

Just to show my objectivity, I've just seen a a news story about the Ukrainian Foreign Minister comparing overnight shelling of Kiev, to the Nazis shelling of that same city in 1941.

Of course what he fails to mention, is that when the 1941 shelling stopped, most Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators, and about 250k joined the German Army. With hindsight being such a wonderful thing, I think the current analogy can be compared to the prostitute that only realised she'd been raped when the cheque bounced.

I think, in the depths of his soul, this cipher dreams that Russia would seize Ukraine, and he would go to London at the invitation of handsome Johnson and from there, with a cigar in his mouth, would fight with Russia, drinking Macallan.

According to various estimates, from 8 to 10 million people died in World War II in Ukraine. More than 5 million of the dead were civilians, of which more than 1.5 million were victims of the Holocaust. Another 2.2 million people were taken to forced labor in Nazi Germany. 700 cities and 28 thousand villages were completely destroyed and destroyed.

[JohninDublin]

48 minutes ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

I’m sure back in the day Cuba was willing and was very happy to host the Soviet’s nuclear missiles. The USA probably not as much. 

It doesn’t matter how you look at it, Russia will never allow Ukraine to join NATO, for obvious reasons.

If the Western countries care so much about Ukrainian people, they should send troops now and help them fight the Russians instead of implementing useless sanctions against Russia. Otherwise the West should stop stirring up sh**t which in the end only brings death to Ukrainians. The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO when they all knew this would never happen. 

Needless to say, that Ukraine once was the 3rd nuclear power in the world. But they were persuaded mainly by the West to give up their nukes. Do you think that if Ukraine had its nukes right now Russia would be invading? 

As before, I still can't make any sense of what you are trying to say, But let's try?

Cuba. Relevance please?

Why should Russia be allowed to overrule the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian, not withstanding that it is not Russia, but NATO who have the final say on this matter.

"...which in the end only brings death to Ukrainians.". I take it you don't believe any Russians are dying in this conflict?

"The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO". When did they make the offer?

Does the lack of nukes held by Ukraine, legitimise Russia's invasion?

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

8 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

As before, I still can't make any sense of what you are trying to say, But let's try?

Cuba. Relevance please?

Why should Russia be allowed to overrule the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian, not withstanding that it is not Russia, but NATO who have the final say on this matter.

"...which in the end only brings death to Ukrainians.". I take it you don't believe any Russians are dying in this conflict?

"The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO". When did they make the offer?

Does the lack of nukes held by Ukraine, legitimise Russia's invasion?

You have 0 understanding of geopolitics. 

When the threat of Russian missiles being in Cuba came, the USA threatened with invading Cuba, that invasion only didn't happen because back then the Russians got off their high horses and the USA and the Soviet Union "made a deal" and withdrew their missiles. 

Great, now we have established neither the USA nor Russia particularly enjoy having each other's missiles / troops on their front door. See how relevant it is? 

Russia shouldn't be allowed to overrule the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian people. But such is the wicked way of our world, Russia is a military power and you must be dreaming if you think they're gonna allow NATO to put its troops in Ucrania. Damn right they are willing to invade Ukraine to avoid this, they proved it yesterday!

8 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

"...which in the end only brings death to Ukrainians.". I take it you don't believe any Russians are dying in this conflict?

No comment needed to a silly remark, lol. 

8 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

"The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO". When did they make the offer?

Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them.

8 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

Does the lack of nukes held by Ukraine, legitimise Russia's invasion?

Never said that. But it was the West who swindled Ukraine to give up their nukes. Had Ukraine not given them up, be sure Russia wouldn't pull the trigger this easily. 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Lyp14 [ctxa]

[JohninDublin]

14 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

You have 0 understanding of geopolitics. 

When the threat of Russian missiles being in Cuba came, the USA threatened with invading Cuba, that invasion only didn't happen because back then the Russians got off their high horses and the USA and the Soviet Union "made a deal" and withdrew their missiles. 

Great, now we have established neither the USA nor Russia particularly enjoy having each other's missiles / troops on their front door. See how relevant it is? 

Russia shouldn't be allowed to overrule the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian people. But such is the wicked way of our world, Russia is a military power and you must be dreaming if you think they're gonna allow NATO to put its troops in Ucrania. Damn right they are willing to invade Ukraine to avoid this, they proved it yesterday!

No comment needed to a silly remark, lol. 

Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them.

Never said that. But it was the West who swindled Ukraine to give up their nukes. Had Ukraine not given them up, be sure Russia wouldn't pull the trigger this easily. 

 

"0 understanding". How lucky must I be to learn at your feet then. 

Ukrainian Missiles? I think you will find that they were Soviet Missiles. Do you really think that when Ukraine decided to divorce from he USSR, that the Russians were going to say, "It's ok honey. You can keep custody of the missiles"?

When there is no sign that Ukraine are likely to be admitted to NATO anytime soon, claiming that the reason Russia invaded was to prevent this is laughable. The reference to "Ucrania" is interesting. Don't tell me we have two bots now?

You think my comment questioning whether you believed no Russians were dying, qualified as "...silly remark lol". I am not sure that are too many non-bots who would agree with you.

"Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them."

<deleted content>

As an expert on geopolitics, can you tell me how many former Soviet Republics were allowed to keep their nukes when they left the Soviet Union? Yeah! Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it? It was an irrelevance what the US wanted. Russia was not going to make free gifts of Nukes to any of the former Soviet Republics, so you can take your head out of that rabbit-hole.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Unnecessary provocative content removed

[Alavan]

4 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Just to show my objectivity, I've just seen a a news story about the Ukrainian Foreign Minister comparing overnight shelling of Kiev, to the Nazis shelling of that same city in 1941.

Of course what he fails to mention, is that when the 1941 shelling stopped, most Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators, and about 250k joined the German Army. With hindsight being such a wonderful thing, I think the current analogy can be compared to the prostitute that only realised she'd been raped when the cheque bounced.

Some Ukrainians joined the Germans, some fought with the Russians, like the chief (communist) political commisar in Stalingrad. His name was Nikita Chrustjev

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

13 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

0 understanding". How lucky must I be to learn at your feet then. 

Ukrainian Missiles? I think you will find that they were Soviet Missiles. Do you really think that when Ukraine decided to divorce from he USSR, that the Russians were going to say, "It's ok honey. You can keep custody of the missiles"?

 

Ukraine and Ukrainian scientists have the technology and the raw materials to have nuclear weapons. And the proof is the multiple nuclear power stations they operate. If a country can use nuclear power for producing electricity, they can make nuclear weapons. 

So clearly it’s a matter of them voluntarily not doing so. 

 

13 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

When there is no sign that Ukraine are likely to be admitted to NATO anytime soon, claiming that the reason Russia invaded was to prevent this is laughable. The reference to "Ucrania" is interesting. Don't tell me we have two bots now?

I am a Spaniard, and in Spanish, Ukraine is spelled "Ucrania". I'm sure my iPhone's Spanish Keyboard must have changed the word while I was typing without me realizing. 

 

13 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

<deleted content>

<deleted content>

 

The Ukrainian president signed a document stating they were gonna join NATO. NATO played along, when in reality all parties know it's not going to happen. 

13 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

As an expert on geopolitics, can you tell me how many former Soviet Republics were allowed to keep their nukes when they left the Soviet Union? Yeah! Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it? It was an irrelevance what the US wanted. Russia was not going to make free gifts of Nukes to any of the former Soviet Republics, so you can take your head out that rabbit-hole.

Read what I said on the first paragraph. Ukraine doesn't need Russia gifting them nuclear weapons to have this technology, they don't need Russia at all to have nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons mainly swindled by the West under fake promises of protecting them from a Russian invasion.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Disparaging content removed

[JohninDublin]

12 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

Ukraine and Ukrainian scientists have the technology and the raw materials to have nuclear weapons. And the proof is the multiple nuclear power stations they operate. If a country can use nuclear power for producing electricity, they can make nuclear weapons. 

So clearly it’s a matter of them voluntarily not doing so. 

I am a Spaniard, and in Spanish, Ukraine is spelled "Ucrania". I'm sure my iPhone's Spanish Keyboard must have changed the word while I was typing without me realizing. 

Oh John, you really don't really wanna go down that path. I am pretty conservative on sexual matters, I am married, I don't cheat, never have never will. Furthermore I am not a pervert and neither a whoremonger nor a sex-addict. Seeing your other posts, specially those of your recent holiday in Phuket, I believe you are the opposite of mine in those very matters... So I suggest again you'd better not go down the path of "sexual assault" and keep on topic which is Ukraine. 

The Ukrainian president signed a document stating they were gonna join NATO. NATO played along, when in reality all parties know it's not going to happen. 

Read what I said on the first paragraph. Ukraine doesn't need Russia gifting them nuclear weapons to have this technology, they don't need Russia at all to have nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons mainly swindled by the West under fake promises of protecting them from a Russian invasion.

More rubbish from you. The issue is not whether Ukraine could make nukes, but who owned the nukes in Ukraine. You are obfuscating with the silly premise that it was only because the US insisted, that Ukraine disarmed. The reality is that Russia took those weapons back when Ukraine become independent.

<deleted content>

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

12 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

More rubbish from you. The issue is not whether Ukraine could make nukes, but who owned the nukes in Ukraine. You are obfuscating with the silly premise that it was only because the US insisted, that Ukraine disarmed. The reality is that Russia took those weapons back when Ukraine become independent.

You need to refrain from turning this into a personal attack on me. I never made any such allegations against you. I exposed the rank stupidity of your suggestion that NATO, "kind of invited" Ukraine to join, with an analogy where you (or anyone else) gives a defence to a charge of sex assault by saying, "She kind of invited me". It's clearly quite ludicrous as a defence to begin with, but then like so many who realise their own foolishness but don't want to have to confront it, you obfuscate and pretend I've accused you of deviancy in order to save face. I made no such allegation. 

As for your personal opinions on my activities, do you think I really give a cattle what you think or for your snide remarks?

<deleted content> Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear weapons because they gave them up because all parties including Russia and the West promised they would protect Ukraine from any harm. Those are facts, the rest is whataboutism. Go research the matter. Use Google.

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[JohninDublin]

12 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

There is no one but you doing personal attacks, first it was “bot” now you said my logic was as flawed as that of those who no less than rape a woman. Now that your words have come back to bite you, you cry. 
 

Like I said in my original post, keep those silly remarks to yourself, and keep on topic which is Ukraine. If you go down that route, I’ll pay you back with your own coin. 
 

And for the rest, Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear weapons because they gave them up because all parties including Russia and the West promised they would protect Ukraine from any harm. Those are facts, the rest is whataboutism. Go research the matter. Use Google.

Putting words in my mouth does nothing for the paucity of your argument. You probably made the most vacuous comment of the day, when asked to justify your comment ""The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO". You replied ""Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them", (my emphasis). <deleted content>

Yes! The Ukrainians might have refused on grounds of their own security, but they were given security guarantees by Russia, the US and the UK in the Budapest Memorandum. That's not the first time that an Eastern European country has been screwed over by that Trinity. 

And your failure to understand that it was the Russians demanding the return of their missiles, and not the US persuading Ukraine to de-nuclearise, that really exposes your credentials as a fount of all knowledge of  geo-politics. You might well be right in your initial personal attack on me stating that I knew "0" about geo-politics, but it still transpires I know a bit more than you.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

9 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Putting words in my mouth does nothing for the paucity of your argument. You probably made the most vacuous comment of the day, when asked to justify your comment ""The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO". You replied ""Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them." After your attempted obfuscation  where you pretended I accused you of deviancy, that has to be the dumbest comment of the day.

And your failure to understand that it was the Russians demanding the return of their missiles, and not the US persuading Ukraine to de-nuclearise, that really exposes your credentials as a fount of all knowledge of  geo-politics. You might well be right in your initial personal attack on me stating that I knew "0" about geo-politics, but it still transpires I know a bit more than you.

Once again John… Those weapons that were left in Ukrainian soil belonged to the Socialist Republic of Ukraine, never to the Socialist Republic of Russia, let alone the Russian Federation. The Soviet Union was just the Union of several republics.  Go read on Google for god’s sake. Those weapons weren't given back to Russia, they were destroyed according to the Budapest Treaties.
 

The West forced Ukraine to forfeit its nuclear weapons, and now that they are getting bombed, the West will not do anything.

 

And like I said about personal attacks, you started calling me bot and you continued by making a very unfortunate, out of tone, and off topic comparison with your words. 
 

<deleted content>

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[OOber]

<off-topic content deleted>

Edited February 26, 2022 by KaptainRob
Refer Forum Guidelines

[JohninDublin]

9 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

Once again John… Those weapons that were left in Ukrainian soil belonged to the Socialist Republic of Ukraine, never to the Socialist Republic of Russia, let alone the Russian Federation. The Soviet Union was just the Union of several republics.  Go read on Google for god’s sake. Those weapons weren't given back to Russia, they were destroyed according to the Budapest Treaties.
 

And like I said about personal attacks, you started calling me bot and you continued by making a very unfortunate, out of tone, and off topic comparison with your words. 
 

The logic is pretty clear, you claim that the logic behind my statement about NATO and Ukraine is essentially the same as “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means “Anal”…. Which you are implying due to my presumably flawed logic I could rape a girl… That’s not okay at all, and if you go down that nasty path, I’ll pay you back in your own currency. Don’t try to save face now. 

<deleted content> You stated, " The West has caused this by offering the clownish Ukrainian president to join NATO when they all knew this would never happen. ". When asked when they made this offer was made, you replied ""Not rejecting Ukraine, even when it doesn't even meet the eligibility criteria to join NATO, and messing around with promises and agreements, is sort of equal to inviting them" (my emphasis). It is quite clear from that you are no longer sticking with the original lie, because Ukraine were never offered NATO membership. So just like the US students I referenced, you change the words to suit your own failing agenda.

<deleted content>

Edited February 26, 2022 by BigHewer
Disparaging remarks removed

[butterfly]

<disparaging off-topic content deleted>

Edited February 26, 2022 by KaptainRob
Refer Forum Guidelines

[oldschooler]

Following SHOULD have been done by treaty before present Ukraine formed.

Surprised nobody here has raised any of these issues yet. 

West Ukraine (Ukrainian- speaking areas) /new state/ democratic/ pro- West.

East Ukraine (Russian- speaking areas)/ new state / autocratic/ pro- Russia.

Both Neutral & Demilitarized (like Austria).Buffers between Russia & NATO.

What Will Russia actually do once they have control over of all Ukraine ?

Hopefully establish the above but not before economically Wrecking both new states so they never “ threaten” an Unfree Russia again. 

Let’s set aside that all three Baltic states are NATO and border Russia already.

Ukraine is of course much different being populated essentially by other ethnic Russians (inter - Russian family squabble ?) far larger and vitally strategic. 

[EdwardV]

6 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

you must be dreaming if you think they're gonna allow NATO to put its troops in Ucrania.

People keep bringing this up like it was going to happen. Besides the fact Ukraine didn't qualify for NATO, and they never would as long as Russia remained in Crimea (and they are never leaving). The idea Russia needed to invade Ukraine to keep them from joining NATO is a red herring since Russia already controlled access. The idea Russia needed to invade Ukraine to keep nuclear missiles away from Russia (as in the US with Cuba) is also a red herring since again Ukraine was never joining NATO. This is besides the fact NATO can already do so if they wished from the Baltic States or Poland. Both of which are more than close enough. 

Russia invaded Ukraine because of geography and demographics. Russia is a dying country, they have a terminal demographic and are not long for this world in it's present form. Nothing can be done about it as it's already baked into population pyramid. As they say, demographics plays out over generations,. It would take multiple generations to reverse the trend even if Russia had right population mix to do so - which they don't. the Russian government knows this and it's why they are resetting their borders into something more defensible with a smaller military. Russia needs Ukraine in addition to Belarus as they block access to the Russian heartland through the European plain. While not as good as owning the Polish and Bessararabian gaps, it's good enough. Without the Ukraine, Russia is indefensible from the west with what is expected to be the size of it's military in the next decades to come. There are reasons Russia invaded Crimea and Georgia, placed troops into Belarus and Armenia, and backstopped Kazakhstan. The Ukraine was always going to be invaded once they turned from east to west. It was just a question of how and when. 

[Vigo]

22 hours ago, butterfly said:

and again the west using collective punishment and alienating ordinary Russian citizens in the UK because of Putin actions. That's how ridiculous this whole affair is.

There are legal allowances to the rule. In order to be exempt from the restriction, the applicant must provide a reason and demonstrate that the  account holder is not associated with the regulation's sanctioned activities. it is no different than currency regulations that allow the  import or export of  cash. For example, you must declare cash of £10,000 or more to UK customs if you’re carrying it between Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and a country outside the UK. For Northern Ireland, it is €10,000.

The 50,000 limit is  generous and is intended to  prevent money dumping. It is not unreasonable. Legitimate visa holders in the UK will not have any problems.

[JohninDublin]

51 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Following SHOULD have been done by treaty before present Ukraine formed.

Surprised nobody here has raised any of these issues yet. 

West Ukraine (Ukrainian- speaking areas) /new state/ democratic/ pro- West.

East Ukraine (Russian- speaking areas)/ new state / autocratic/ pro- Russia.

Both Neutral & Demilitarized (like Austria).Buffers between Russia & NATO.

What Will Russia actually do once they have control over of all Ukraine ?

Hopefully establish the above but not before economically Wrecking both new states so they never “ threaten” an Unfree Russia again. 

Let’s set aside that all three Baltic states are NATO and border Russia already.

Ukraine is of course much different being populated essentially by other ethnic Russians (inter - Russian family squabble ?) far larger and vitally strategic. 

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but it ignores the principles of democracy. The population of Ukraine is 44 mill. of which about 8 mill are ethnic Russians. That includes Crimea. Why should 8 mill Russians be allowed to detach themselves from Ukraine in order to hand over a huge swathe of the country to Russia against the wishes of the other 36 mill? 

How often are we going to see Russia inventing pretexts of protecting "Russians" as they have done in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia as an excuse to invade peaceful countries? 

[Vigo]

8 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

Never said that. But it was the West who swindled Ukraine to give up their nukes. Had Ukraine not given them up, be sure Russia wouldn't pull the trigger this easily. 

You have forgotten the history of the Ukraine after  the dissolution of CCCP and you are incorrectly blaming the "west" for a Ukraine initiative. The Ukraine was at risk of contamination from its own arsenal. 

 The Arms Control Association reported that at the time of Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers. By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances In The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The Ukraine  received generous  compensation from both Russia and the west.

Do you know what the lifespan of a nuclear weapon is? Although the radioactive payload may remain stable for up to 100 years, the delivery system starts to deteriorate at 5 years and components and parts must be maintained.  Ukraine was a poor country and could not maintain its nuclear arsenal. The nuclear stockpile had to be maintained and updated over the past 30 years and the Ukraine did not have the finances to do that. Had the Ukraine  not disposed of the  arsenal it would have risked mini chernobyl catastrophic events throughout the country.

The Ukraine was and still is a very corrupt nation. It was notable for its export of military hardware. Along with Belarus it was often implicated in the supply of sanctioned countries and of UN/ EU arms embargo busting. After the collapse of CCCP, there was a legitimate fear that the Ukraine's nuclear technology would be sold to hostile entities. At the time, the Ukrainians were an international security risk. There was therefore a broad consensus to get rid of the exposure as fast as possible.

In this case, both Russia and the west acted in a responsible manner, even if they also  improved their own security as an outcome.

[KRLMRX]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

West Ukraine (Ukrainian- speaking areas) /new state/ democratic/ pro- West.

East Ukraine (Russian- speaking areas)/ new state / autocratic/ pro- Russia.

the irony is that Russian imperials say the same thing. and apparently Putin intends to do so.

militant hawks are the same everywhere. 

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

8 minutes ago, Vigo said:

Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia

Except they didn't. Ukraine's nuclear warheads were destroyed. Please read here: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

 

8 minutes ago, Vigo said:

Do you know what the lifespan of a nuclear weapon is? Although the radioactive payload may remain stable for up to 100 years, the delivery system starts to deteriorate at 5 years and components and parts must be maintained.  Ukraine was a poor country and could not maintain its nuclear arsenal. The nuclear stockpile had to be maintained and updated over the past 30 years and the Ukraine did not have the finances to do that. Had the Ukraine  not disposed of the  arsenal it would have risked mini chernobyl catastrophic events throughout the country.

They didn't need to keep and maintain 1900 warheads. That's about 100 times the number you need to wipe out Russia's most important cities. If only they had kept 10 warheads, it would have been enough to make Russia think twice about invading them. And I understand they may not have had the money to maintain 1,900 warheads, but surely they could maintain 10 of them. 

8 minutes ago, Vigo said:

The Ukraine was and still is a very corrupt nation. It was notable for its export of military hardware. Along with Belarus it was often implicated in the supply of sanctioned countries and of UN/ EU arms embargo busting. After the collapse of CCCP, there was a legitimate fear that the Ukraine's nuclear technology would be sold to hostile entities. At the time, the Ukrainians were an international security risk. There was therefore a broad consensus to get rid of the exposure as fast as possible.

In this case, both Russia and the west acted in a responsible manner, even if they also  improved their own security as an outcome.

Yes this was a possibility, but we can not overlook the fact that we made them give up their nuclear weapons, and now we couldn't care less about them being bombed and killed. Specially when this invasion could have been avoided.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Lyp14 [ctxa]