Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on sopuli.xyz

47 replies

Has anyone mentioned, just in passing, that if Putin withdrew there would be no motivation for the Ukrainians to even continue fighting. Well, except for revenge.

49

They’re going to respond in kind and develop nuclear weapons.

28
Jumireply
lemmy.world

It'll be a quick thing, 3 days max in and out

14

The "out" part was never part of the plan.

5

They could beat Ukraine with just a military training exercise I bet

1

Remember when Russia signed that contract to not attack it's ex colonies if they give up their nukes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

According to the three memoranda,[6] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:

Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7]

Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[8][9][10]

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[11][12]

63
feddit.org

The whole world demonstrated it clearly. If it's not in a big alliance, it needs nukes or the world will fuck the country over.

Nice precedent set there by pacivity, or outright aggression. Good job nuclear powers, real nice (/s).

31
miskreply
sopuli.xyz

If the west wants to prevent nuclear proliferation they have to defend a county that gave up nukes willingly for the promise of defense. Shortsightedness of the western powers will lead to more countries learning from Ukraine’s mistake and hurt us worse than whining of a despot could ever do. It’s not like that big alliance doesn’t have nukes either.

13

I feel like the West is just doing the bare minimum to support Ukraine. Enough to be able to say "look we did something" but not too much, because maybe some voters won't understand the benefits of spending their taxes on Ukraine.

11
Maalusreply
lemmy.world

"Big alliance" part is also untested. Who knows what would happen if Putin got Ukraine fast and moved onto the Baltics.

2

It's funny though, the only countries that don't get invaded now are the ones with nuclear weapons. 🤷‍♂️

31
lemmy.world

The West should then not allow Russia to have nuclear weapons "under any circumstances". Fair is fair.

17

Ideally no country would have nuclear weapons, but I don't think Russia's call for denuclearisation should be taken with any seriousness whatsoever unless they get rid of their own nukes.

3

Oh cool, so they'll withdraw from Ukrainian territories so they won't need to build nukes, right?

...Right?

16
feddit.org

So maybe they can guarantee that they don't and won't have nuclear weapons and Putin leaves them alone?/s

10
Nougatreply
fedia.io

Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons they retained after the end of the USSR in exchange for a promise from Russia that they wouldn't get invaded.

8

Yeah and since that worked so good, we should try that again! /S

1
feddit.org

The title and teaser really don't make the article justice.

The title and teaser is promoting Putins propaganda.

The article later does give context both to what Zelensky said and the history of Ukraine denuclearization and failed security guarantees.

I still hate the whole layout. First and foremost, it fearmongers or baits.

I would have liked a title that summarizes the article, or puts Putins claims into context. Not publishing Russian propaganda.

10
miskreply
sopuli.xyz

I get what you mean but I used this piece specifically because western media started to downplay Zalensky’s threat of developing nuclear arms as misunderstanding. Putin seem to think it is credible. And I hope it is.

4
Kissakireply
feddit.org

Putin saying something doesn't tell you anything about what he believes.

He took the opportunity to paint Ukraine in a dangerous light, and put out a threat of escalation as well, while also painting Russia in a powerful and rightful way.

although Zelenskiy later clarified that neither a nuclear program “nor anything like that” is part of his plans

They're repeating Russian talking points to a non-thing.

4

I wouldn’t take any of those things at face value. Even a veiled threat that was later downplayed could have been made just so that the other side starts considering it more seriously.

1
miskreply
sopuli.xyz

They’re definitely pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine due to basic human decency, just more nuanced and less concerned with appearance because they report from Hispanic / Latino perspective and naturally they’re a bit more detached due to distance.

1
lemmy.world

Tnx. So "less worried about appearance ", is being the main difference you reckon?

I checked them out, apart of being pro PS some years ago, they came out very trustworthy and factual.

Yet somehow the paper "reads" completely different to other western media outlets,. It could be what you said.

1

Being less worried about appearance in regards to war in Ukraine stems from aspiring to be the voice of global south, at least in my perception. They tend to underscore humanitarian cost and threat of escalation because they don’t have as much historical context as Eastern Europe does, but that doesn’t mean they don’t recognise that the blame is solely on Russia. To them invasion of Ukraine is about as distant as civil war in Myanmar is for someone in Ukraine.

El Pais reminds me of weekly news/political magazines from the time when those were still printed on paper. Their reporting covers majors news, politics but also popular science and culture. What’s nice about them is that they’re don’t publish a story unless it’s reasonably fleshed out. Even though it’s obviously left leaning it doesn’t go overtly partisan like The Guardian.

1

Well russia broke Budapester Memorandum long ago ( well the West too with this low help ). So yea Ukraine should do it

"The Russian army is becoming not only one of the most technologically advanced" lol which technology? Drones ammunition trucks etc mostly from other countries

8
lemmy.zip

Too bad Putin has nothing to say about that unless he pulls his troops out of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

6

And even then.

Mr Putin currently has a say on whether this own country has nukes. Through his veto power in the UNSC he can meddle to some extent in other countries.

I think this is one case where he really needs to understand how uninvolved and powerless he is.

Can't he do something positive in his remaining years?

3

That mad small-dicked guy really does live in his own crazy world, doesn't he...

6

Could the circumstances be honoring the agreement you made in 2014 on this exact fucking topic?

This little russian fuckwit is growing senile.

4
lemm.ee

That's fine. Nobody wants Ukraine to have nuclear weapons.

-18

Tri- or Quad-polar order I think.

We're going to see China / EU / US / Latin America

Russia wants to be their own part of that, but now they are under China. They clearly aren't strong enough to stand on their own if little Ukraine is fighting them to a stand still.

4
Salehreply
feddit.org

The "coming world order" will be much more complicated.

We are going towards a multipolar world. India is in the mix. South America gets in the mix as the US declines. The Middle East could get in the mix if it wasn't consistently destabilized by the West and Russia.

The EU countries need to free themselves from aligning alongside the US or Russia, establishing the EU as a unified power bloc. Especially as "the West" is very much for sale with Trump and the other US Republicans, but also the US Democrats using Europe as an extension of US interests is weakening it.

It is in the EUs best interest to reestablish Ukraines territorial integrity. As the US lets itself get dragged into another great war in West Asia through Israel, US support for Ukraine will be getting less and pushing for a ceasefire on the basis of handing territory to Russia becomes more likely. Also the US setting West Asia ablaze with Israel will result in a new number of refugees that will dwarf the Syrian civil war and other crisis of the 2010 years.

The West is falling apart as the US declines. But China and Russia also aren't the best buddies and they no longer share the same ideology. Both countries are riddled with internal problems, most notably a huge demographic bomb. Same for the EU, not so much the US yet.

Best thing EU can do is grow together, establish not only a single market, but an united European army and foreign policy. The EU should also develop a mechanism that existing nuclear weapons in the EU, which now only is France, but maybe again UK at some point, become part of a joint European nuclear deterrence.

-1

The comment is not about war really, it is about power factions (hopefully) equalizing each other. The UK has, for the time being, chosen to stop aligning with the EU bloc, so they can fend for themselves.

-1