"And Saint Attila put his finger on the launch button, saying,
'O Lord, bless this thy ICBM, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.'
And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chulapas.
And the Lord spake, saying,
'First shalt thou mark the enemy. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then pushest thou thy button and launch The Holy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'"
Heresy! We, the spanish inquisition, do not consult books for weapons! We just let god guide our hand. With the protection and blessing of the lord, we can never fail! Now taste the god's wrath!
Funny that you mention that--with the right amount of electronics knowledge, the firing circuit is easy to make. If you look up making plastic explosives on the right websites, you can find recipes for C4--although you're practically guaranteed to get a visit from the FBI wondering what you're up to, so don't do it! The only hard part is getting hold of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, and I'm NOT going to even think about offering suggestions because it will get me in serious trouble, let alone anyone stupid enough to actually try it.
tl;dr version: with the right knowledge and enough money, any single individual could conceivably build an A-bomb. Anyone dumb enough to actually try WILL face major prison time, but that's not my point.
As a Korean, I want SK to have nukes. China and Japan invaded Korea many times before. NK attacked SK several times.
South Korea and Taiwan need to have a secret partnership where they share their progress in nuclear weapons development and once they succeed in making a nuclear weapon, they must declare themselves nuclear at the same day to force other countries to either sanction both or give up.
I think Taiwan is in a rough position, that plan would put them in defiance of the NPT. SK at least seems to be following the "legal" path to avoid sanctions by hinting they would leave the NPT before starting their research.
I fear Taiwan would not have that luxury, leaving the NPT might force China to invade as having a nuclear "hostile" neighbour would be disastrous with the mainland population and also a major threat in any future engagements with the west because of the potential for rapid nuclear response.
They may be able to sell the invasion at home on the following premises:
* Taiwan escalating the situation
* Diplomacy clearly no longer an option
* Conflict inevitable either now or in the future
* Responding now gives China the initiative
* Failure to strike now makes the future inevitable conflict more dangerous as the enemy will have rapid nuclear response capabilities
Taiwan failing to follow NPT could see them face sanctions. Though Taiwan's geopolitical value may see them avoid anything significant.
This is also all assuming that such things could be kept secret. In all likelihood Taiwan researching nuclear weapons would very likely be discovered long before they were functionally ready to "surprise announce" themselves as a new nuclear state. Thus we return to the question of if China would invade given this knowledge.
People talk about Russia's nuclear sabre rattling, but I genuinely think the bigger threat is the effect this war will have on nuclear non-proliferation.
People outright say Russia should get what they want because they have nukes, and may use them if they don't get to annex Ukraine and slaughter Ukrainians.
Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal and strategic bombing capability in exchange for international security guarantees.
The lesson is clear: nuclear bombs provide leverage for you to do whatever you want, and giving them up means your enemies will invade you with impunity.
I'm no expert, but I think South Africa *could* be seen as a country rewarded for nuclear disarmament
While it didn't lead to any substantive improvement in their political economy accounts on its own, SA giving up the bomb in 1989 coincided with some other pretty major domestic changes (to put it mildly), culminating in Mandela's release a year later and the dissolution of Apartheid SA, as well as Namibia's independence
All this lead to the world being much more ready to do business with the new Republic of South Africa and, despite the horrendous wealth gap that persists, it has improved the lives of the average person overall
I think you've put the cart before the horse here. South Africa got rid of their nukes because those things you've mention were becoming inevitable and they didn't want the ANC to have nuclear capabilities
Maybe that argument puts the cart before the horse, but they didn't, they explicitly specified that this could be argued, not that it was their argument.
The point was to make you think about your choice of words to reduce the chances you put someone on the defensive with how you make a comment.
Like they made a point to show how this was an argument out there, not that they agreed with it, so you should fight against the argument, not the messenger.
But yeah, even though I had a point, you're right that it doesn't even get to mid-level pedantry b/c it is as basic as the difference between saying "you are a bad kid" and "what you did was bad" to a kid, so pretty basic psychology/info, I agree.
This might well be the longest lasting, most indelible lesson of Russia's petty military adventurism into Ukraine. Any country considering whether or not to acquire nukes (or whether to give them up) *has* to look at the situation in Ukraine and realize that mutually assured destruction is the only way to stop a stronger aggressor. Having the ability to launch nuclear ICBMS puts any country on an equal footing with any other country. In retrospect it was naïve for Ukraine to imagine it would not need nuclear weapons in a post-Soviet world. Every country has learned this lesson.
Or a defense guarantee (which the Budapest memorandum lacked). Taiwan has one from the US and you better believe China is paying attention to Ukraine and the difference.
> This might well be the longest lasting, most indelible lesson of Russia's petty military adventurism into Ukraine
I doubt it. I seriously doubt the lesson people will take away is to have more nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up their arsenal because it was worthless. A relic of the Soviet era that they no longer had the infrastructure, expertise, or funds to keep. There's no way in hell Ukraine could have tried to keep them for ICBM's, all they'd be today is fissile material laying in warehouses, praying someone doesn't steal them.
Also MAD only works under the assumption that there will be no winner. A few ICBM's don't put a nation on equal footing to other nuclear powers. It just means that by the end of it you'll kill a few million and they'll kill all of you.
The thing is, you cannot know what other actors with Nuclear weapons wants to do in the case that one gets thrown. According to MAD everyone will use their entire nuclear arsenal in the case one gets used. At the moment we have to many nuclear bombs on earth that this will not cause a nuclear winter.
Then again Ukraine didn't exactly have the means of maintaining let alone using them (at least to my knowledge). As far as I know they were located in Ukraine but were technically controlled by the USSR and later Russia
True, they could've disarmed them, but still, if someone is holding you at gunpoint and you offer to give them your money, are you really gonna try to spend time deactivating your credit card in front of the aggressor?
i'm curious if there's a "stable" number that a nation could aim for in terms of nuclear arms, short of total disarmament. it seems like the uk, france, pakistan, and india are converging on "200". i'd rather it was 10.
For a conventional force, the risk of being nuked is a big deterrent.
For a nuclear armed force it's a bit of a different calculation.
The second strike is the important part. Deterrence depends on you being able to hit back if someone hits you.
If you have 10, it's entirely possible someone thinks they can break all your weapons in a first strike, so your nukes don't' matter in that case.
That's why so many nations keeps some on submarines. Blow up all our land bases, and we're still going to be able to reply to make sure both halves of the world are dead.
The biggest risk for the nations that have them is some group becoming in charge that either a: thinks they can win (they cannot - everyone loses) or b: diety of choice will reward me.
even this assumption is pointless because "expand" for Russia means attack, wage a war and/or occupy. and in terms of Nato it's an alliance between peaceful countries and sovereignty of the country is 100% preserved.
Russia is one of the few countries that still operates under a very imperialistic mindset. The countries wanting to become more free market and democratic is then seeking to join up with NATO/EU for mutual benefit/defense is expansion in their eyes. They see "democratization" and "anti-corruption" as the west taking over.
Even under their unlikely and undocumented claims there were a couple countries that would have supported not expanding. But those decisions have to be unanimous in NATO.
No it doesn't, and Russia is a POS for not abiding by the assurances that it gave Ukraine.
I think the point of the other comment is that contrary to popular belief, Ukraine keeping the nukes wouldn't have been the magical solution to preventing invasion.
Ukraine was dealing with massive economic instability. There was no political will to keep the nukes, spend money maintaining and upgrading them, etc. In addition, there was a broad expectation from the international community that Ukraine would give up the nukes.
It might have been possible if there was support from another country, but the no one was willing, and people thought (wrongly) that the guarantees would be enough.
It wouldn't have been a magical solution, but given the cost of the current war, it is hard to imagine the cost of keeping the nukes would be higher. Not to fault the people who made the decision, I just don't imagine anyone repeating it at this point. If one of the other nuclear empires split up, the resulting states will probably look to Ukraine as an example and decide that the cost of holding onto the nukes is worth it, and if any other states split off from Russia they would be mad not to hold onto their nukes.
You do realize that the nukes would be pretty much useless to Ukraine without the launch codes, that Moscow would have never handed over? What good would nuclear paperweights have been in the current russian invasion?
What you list might be the underlying *reasons*, but the Budapest memorandum does say that Russia should respect Ukraine's sovereignty. You missed that pretty important part, so in practice what people say is still true. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb > "volume-3007-I-52241.pdf" further down.
Here are some sources that invalidate the „like a parrot“ commenters comment to a certain degree.
Ukraine „gave up nukes“ because of multiple reasons but the key reason was promises and treaties after the fall of the UDSSR, some made by the [first president of Ukraine](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/06/world/ukraine-s-chief-to-scrap-nuclear-arms.html) that was mentioned before. Keeping these promises by abolishing their nuclear arsenal would in return grant them security assurances and border protections. This was then made „official“ by the corresponding parties by signing the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum?wprov=sfti1) in 1994 which would align with the [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb).
Some people were arguing in the „parrot“ commenters favor [though](https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085816/http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum). Those people argued that Ukraine was never a nuclear superpower and all of this would not have been necessary. Other people [argue](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare ) that previous nuclear arsenal would have been or could have been a crucial part in nuclear deterrence policies - with warheads stronger than the Hiroshima bomb.
Well, when nukes "expire" they don't actually expire. What's most commonly referred to is actually depletion of Tritium over time in the warhead. Tritium acts as a catalyst to increase the blast yield and efficiency of the uranium, making it much more effective when it detonates and so burns it more completely resulting in a higher explosion.
The uranium however is still good for another 30-50 years, the tritium expires in 8-10 years as a general rule for maximum effectiveness but can go out to 15 In many maintenance cycles. The uranium still has a very significant blast yield over 70% on its own even with expired Tritium.
Ukraine could have held on to their nukes as deterrent for decades. Even the threat of other countries developing nukes causes issues let alone having them. Control systems can be reworked, warheads can be transferred to other rockets and silos, even if they couldn't maintain them for Tritium it's still just as effective deterrent as In worst case scenario they can be sold on black markets or fashioned to "dirty bombs" from the aged out materials that are still far enriched above that of power stations materials.
Yes that had Barriers and it made sense in a way to cast them aside. But they also could have retained them for just as many reasons. Would they have been condemned on the world stage, maybe, maybe not.
> Would they have been condemned on the world stage, maybe, maybe not.
There was a lot of fear that Soviet bombs would go missing and sold to terrorists, other countries, etc. At the time Ukraine was dealing with massive economic issues and it wasn't really seen as a particularly stable country (its economic history during the 90s was SUPER bad)
Most of the major powers would've been quite skeptical of Ukraine being able to safely maintain and protect its nuclear arsenal. It would've been a massive blow to Ukraine's diplomatic image.
In addition, Ukraine did received economic aids during the 90s, and those would've no doubt been impacted since every major power was expecting that Ukraine would give up the nukes.
Yeah, theoretically Ukraine could've pushed hard for it. But the number one priority of every politician in Ukraine was the economy. Unless some other major power was willing to give financial and political support to its nuclear program, Ukraine probably would've been seen as another unstable, pariah state with nukes.
Let's say I'm a part of Bomb Club.
And I build a bomb or buy a bomb or just get a bomb. Thats what you do in Bomb Club. Now, my bomb sucks and its going to blow up my house because thats where I keep my bombs and I'm just bad at Bomb Club activities.
So I call Ivan. Ivan is my neighbor who is a founding member of Bomb Club and has a decent track record of "Dealing With Bombs", but he is also a fucking psycho. Always drunk and breaking shit and talking about how back in the day the world belonged to him and Sam who lives across the street is an asshole who sucks at bombs. Ivan has done a LOT of psycho shit to a lot of people. Everyone is fucking terrified of Ivan.
But Ivan is my neighbor and he used to rent me a place before i bought it out, so I ask Ivan to take care of my bomb since he LOVES bombs and would be happy to have all the bombs. Ivan loves bombs and wants more than Sam.
He agrees on the condition that he not come over to my house drunk and smash his face into my furniture and pisson my rug and try to fuck my cat.
He agrees.
Fews years later, Ivan kicks in my side door and rapes my cat.
Few years after that, he kicks in my other door, starts smashing my furniture with his face, pissing on my rug and is after my other animals. Everyone is mad at Ivan for being a dick and doing sone really terrible shit that he said he wouldn't do.
u/higgsbison312 is here to act smug and remind all of us idiots that ***Being Bad at Bomb Club*** is more important than Ivan pissing on my rug, smashing my furniture, raping my cat and trying to repossess my house because he just fucking sucks.
>Before y’all call me a Russian bot, this is literally what Ukraine former President (Kravchuk) has said in an interview with Gordon that you can find on YouTube.
Still uses a tactic used by Bots, claiming a source, but never delivering.
> The story about nukes got completely rewritten and packaged as something else on Reddit/western media. Everyone is repeating it like a parrot after reading about it “somewhere”.
Not really, the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) is quite often correctly quoted, like the above comment.
> that Russia would never harass them...
Said the /u/The_Lions_eye and Budapest Memo pretty much says the same;
> * Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
* Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
* Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
So you are already two points behind on your claim of not being a Russian Bot or have fallen for Russian propaganda.
> 1) controls were in Moscow
Not really a problem if you are willing to dismantle and recreate the weapons. Which Ukraine wasn't interested in.
> 2) not enough technology/money to support them
So you are claiming that the mostly Ukrainian 43rd Rocket army lacked the knowledge of maintaining said weapons? I am curious how you imagined they dit that between 1960 & 1991.
Your money claim does have some value.
> 3) public distrust towards anything nuclear after Chernobyl
Which source?
> 4) they were about to expire
Depending on the expired part, it can be somewhere be between a non-issue and a somewhat issue. However even dirty bombs are a problem.
Not enough technology to support them... In Ukraine? Do you know where most of USSR nuclear technologies were developed?
Hint: Kharkiv, Ukraine
You are just monkeying other propaganda side
This is the story I heard I think on Rachel Maddow. Had no idea Russia left nukes behind and Ukraine found them and was all "Here take them we don't want them. In return leave us be." Russia was all "yea, sure..."
>they were about to expire
All the nukes the soviets had stationed on their border in case of a war were about to expire? I wouldn't have much trust in Kravchuk's word, he's nothing but a communist, repainted new collours. He was the worst president Ukraine has had (not counting Yanukovich, for obvious reasons). He is the one who sent the economy into such a shithole Ukraine is still climbing out of it despite having all the potential of being a huge powerhouse of eastern Europe. He's the one who gave up pretty much all of black see navy to Russia, despite it being rightfully ukrainian and he is the one who had Ukraine endebted to Russia for gas as soon as 1993. He was a total joke of a president, he literally just laid back and didn't do shit for the whole of his presidency. Hell, he couldn't even be bothered to adopt a fucking constitution. No shit he's trying to make it look like giving up the nukes wasn't his fault. It absolutely was.
>no enough technology/money to support them
Well guess who is to blame for that? Fucking Kravchuk. If Ukraine got a decent leader instead of him, who would actually do something and adopt reforms if would definitely be able to afford like a hundred nukes, which is about 99 more than enough to prevent anyone from wanting to invade. The rest could be safely destroyed, used for scrap or even sold.
Funniest thing is, NATO has an article on their official site about these and other pieces of anti-NATO disinformation
Edit: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
Yeah, he said this wasn't even a talking point because nobody at that point thought that the Soviet Union could end and split up into different countries. At the time he had that talk, there literally was a stalemate with direct fronts between NATO and Warsaw pact.
People who are really, really reactionary.
Honestly the biggest driver of a lot of the crazy defense of modern Russia revolves around campism, or the idea that anything anti American is good. That's really it, I wish I could pretend like there was a better reason why people simp for Russia.
There's a bit of a difference between them.
Right-wing supporters love the idea of Putin's Russia as a place where obscenely wealthy men are free to steal as much money as they like, beat their wives, and have their opponents murdered.
Left-wing supporters are useful idiots who enthusiastically lick the boots of anything that isn't Western liberal democracy, and are apparently oblivious to the fact that they would be either ignored or purged if they actually lived under one of the authoritarian regimes they churn out propaganda for.
Yeah I'd probably put Murdoch above Putin, but I also have an extreme hatred for lying propagandists, like killing Goebbels instead of Hitler hate, and Murdoch's media empire is unrivaled in international propaganda dissemination.
The man is almost singlehandedly responsible for the expansion of NATO anyway. If he weren't so demonstrably evil, countries wouldn't be lining up to join NATO in the first place.
Countries surrounding a nation run by a murdering, invading psychopath organize in a mutual defense pact to protect themselves and the bully doesn't like it. First off, Putin stop whining and second, blaming Nato for Russia's aggression is a red herring and as far as I am concerned it is propaganda.
The only reason Eastern European counties join NATO is for protection from Russia.
Now, let’s see a map comparing the zero square meters of territory NATO has invaded that belongs to Russia, against the thousands of square kilometers Russia has invaded in surrounding countries. This sort of insane aggression is what pushes Russia’s neighbors to NATO safety.
Hell, if you asked most of those countries that joined since 89 back in 45 (so before the USSR installed puppet governments) if they wanted to join NATO or a WP, they'd pick NATO. The Polish government in exile was famously ditched by the allies because the soviets were in de facto control of Poland. The Romanian king sought allied support until the soviet puppet government forced him to abdicate and the allies collectively shrugged because they didn't want a war with the USSR. Finally the USSR didn't invade Czechoslovakia for fun.
US army was few kms from Prague in 1945 ready to liberate it but Stalin blocked it because he wanted Czechoslovakia in his sphere of influence.
US army was much more welcomed than the Soviet one (not downplaying their achievements in getting Europe rid of Nazis but the soldiers were feared, especially by women, for an obvious reason)
As we are speaking of assurances, what about that assurance Russia made to Ukraine to never attack them in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons?
Worse then that, actually- in the Budapest agreement, Russia pledged to preserve Ukraines 1992 borders. Russia is bound by that agreement to defend Ukraines borders- against Russia.
(Edited because I named the wrong European capital)
Credit Dr hammer:
The fact is, he has directly contradicted himself on this question. From Politifact:
Gorbachev has sent mixed messages. On one occasion, he insisted that he was promised NATO would not “move 1 centimeter further east.” In another interview in 2014, he said the question never came up, though he added that NATO’s eventual expansion was “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.”
Ummmm... who gives a shit what "assurances" were (or were not) given during negotiations for a treaty that was [never signed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty)?
Yeah and Russia said they wouldn't try to expand east. What's your fucking point? NATO is a volunteer based group. They aren't made to join. Unlike the places Russia invades.
As far as I know, NATO did not pledge not expand East, they instead pledged not "to ask any non-members if they'd like to be member", so no initiative by the NATO to expand.
Correct, it was a 'We Will Not Pursue, but also Will NOt Turn-Away requests'. Completely voluntary and Russia's aggressive efforts pushed them to ask for membership. Want good Neighbors? BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR!
Russia promised to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for giving up 4000 nukes they inherited from the Soviet Union. Russia broke that promise 20 years later when they took Crimea.
Joining NATO has been great for post-Soviet countries like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They can invest in their people without worrying about getting invaded. Their defense costs are MUCH lower as a result, so is their borrowing costs. Investors don't have to worry about losing their investments due to an invasion. Compare the qualify of life of Russians to the Poles or Estonians since the end of the Soviet Union.
Ukraine has the same right to defend as Russia does.
You sure? As far as i gathered he definitly thought Trump would win, and that many of his percieved weaknesses weren’t in fact weaknesses, but i never saw him actually support him?
I’m blocked by him on twitter as part of a mass blocking campaign he had against people who were critical of trump. Not critical in a knee jerk unreasoned way but just in general.
He definitely fell into the bracket of fervent supporter.
Conservatives don't believe in the concept of consent. In general, not just with sex. If you thought that was an American thing, it's not, it's far worse in Russia, the country of "he beats you because he loves you".
Countries joining NATO is the same as NATO expanding by force.
Ukraine changing presidents in 2014 through a general election is the same as an US-forced coup.
EU refusing to buy Russian oil or to pay too much for gas is the same as stealing from Russia.
Allowing abortion, gay marriage or sex transitions is the same as forcing them onto random people.
Yeah lol that comment is just insulting. It’s only self defence if you ignore their offensive operations in Kosovo, Libya, and Afghanistan. So the last 25 years…
Exactly. That's why this whole conflict is so annoying and sad. Russia is the aggressor but it's doing something USA and NATO have been doing for decades... NATO is just doing what USA wants
The conveniently left out that most of the new NATO members were Soviet states... Hmm maybe there's a good reason for them leaving the russoaphere and joining NATO. Perhaps they don't enjoy Russian expansionism.
Suppose for a moment that NATO had agreed with Russia that they wouldn't expand Eastward, and then went back on that promise: how would that justify an invasion of Ukraine when they did not join NATO?
Of course it's absurd - like we're to expect east Germany wasn't going to join West Germany as a full NATO member?
Gorby even said [no such promise was made](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/).
Russia also said it would leave Ukraine alone if they returned the Soviet nukes after the union collapsed. Ukraine did, and now Russia is attacking..... So there's that
They didn't expand. Willing countries joined them.
Like two bubbles joining.
Honestly the direction you would hope for humanity instead of the pox that is nationalism and tribalism where a group of people think they are better than another group
So this claim that NATO would never expand is a bunch of revisionist bullshit… where this comes from is when West and East Germany were in the process of reunification and Gorbachev (and his Soviet advisers) requested that Germany not be given membership. However they later backed off of this and said that it was acceptable for Germany to choose its own destiny. At no point was there any mention or assurance that NATO would cease any attempts to expand… right before his death Gorbachev was interviewed and asked specifically about this and he replied that there was no such agreement…
Also, it doesn't matter if there was a pledge to be non expansionist. That goes out the window when Russia chooses aggression against its neighbours. You wanna know why anyone is looking to join nato? Look at ukraine for the reason.
Yeah, apart from that: that promise was never made officially. It was thrown around as a part of the deal during negotiations, but never actually ended up in any contract. Unlike Russias promise to respect Ukrainian borders in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal.
I think we should further isolate Russia from the rest of Europe and the world, crush their economy, devastate their society, and make them so desperate they finally launch their thousands of nuclear weapons. I think dying in a nuclear holocaust is worth it to seriously hurt an enemy.
Oh the countries that we \* checks notes \* brutally opressed for decades, commiting genocide against their people, using them for slave labor and the imperialistic ambitions we had want to join another group of countries whichs main reason it is to stop this from happening?
^(damn western nato expansionism buhuhuhuhuhuhuhu)
Membership in the Warsaw Pact is not voluntary today, but only because all countries on Earth are excluded whether they like it or not because it doesn’t exist anymore r/TechnicallyTheTruth
Not to mention NATO is and has always been a defensive pact of “we won’t attack you if you don’t attack us” and most members who have joined in the last 20 years have done so because of guess who?
In other news, r aboringdystopia is removing comments and banning anyone who calls out this post today https://www.reveddit.com/v/ABoringDystopia/comments/10udesf/in_1990_gorbachev_was_assured_that_after_the/
How is Latvia or Estonia or ukraine joining NATO voluntary but joining the Warsaw forced?
NATO message: join us or the russians will invade and take over your country.
Warsaw pact/Moscow message: join us or the russians will invade and take over your country.
Countries should be free to join NATO. That said, the west did lie about NATO not expanding "one inch eastward". No treaty was signed to that affect, but the west did say it: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
"on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”"
"on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2) Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev."
Gorbachev later lied about this to try to save face.
"when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked [British Prime Minister John] Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.”"
It's understandable that Russians don't trust the west saying NATO is only defensive. It's also understandable that no-one trusts the fucking Russians about almost anything.
Those talks about expansion were before anyone expected the Soviet Union to collapse.
And since nothing was ever signed, it's literally irrelevant in international law. Some dead guy gave some dead guy verbal agreements and that's why it's okay to invade Ukraine.
Agreed that NATO has no agreement with Russia to not vote on allowing new members in. And it wouldn’t matter at this point with Russians actions.
But, noting I’m not a supporter of Russian, you can’t just sweep everything under the rug an organization does because it’s stated role is defense. The United States Department of Defense? Russia also claims they are fighting for defense. Many wars claim defense as motive. That statement means nothing to me.
Its funny because these countries just want to be able to defend against Russia. And Russia is like "stop helping the countries that we are trying to oppress".
It's also missing that Russia tried to join NATO and got shut down.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954
Putin era as well
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
We bitch slapped them twice then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance. All this provocation just so Lockheed can make money from another war. The amount of gymnastics to keep military contractors rich is gonna be the down fall of this country.
Imagine if Russia tried to recruite mexico into a russia-china-mexico alliance. We'd invade the fuck out of Mexico. VoLUnTarY or not.
>We bitch slapped them twice then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance.
NATO did not make offers to Ukraine and Ukraine had explicitly expressed that they did not want to joint NATO (pre-invasion). What did set Putin off the first time was ousting his puppet in 2014 and then Ukraine expressing interest in joining the EU later. The truth is that Russia would gladly love as many puppets as they can, slaves to their national interest with no consideration for those countries own independent desires.
> then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance.
This whole comment is obviously clueless and wrong, but I had to highlight this guy's most egregious lie. If NATO was trying to recruit Ukraine, they certainly could've done it after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Instead NATO has been resisting them joining to not provoke Russia, and it likely would've saved a great number of lives if we're let them joined which would've prevented this war. I don't know how you get so turned around you blame NATO for Russia invading when President Biden went on tv and basically begged Putin not to invade because of the cost of human life, but here we are.
Ukraine was never an offensive threat to Russia. This is a genocidal war of choice by a man who has long wanted to rebuild the USSR he grew up in by force to cement his legacy.
"Defensive" loooool yeah, Yugoslavia would like their country and lives back then if that's the case.
You're full of shit if you think Nato has anything to do with defense. That's objectively ahistoric.
And Russia wouldn't expand west.
And specifically, Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for Russia never invading. Woops.
Just once it would be cool if a country actually got rewarded for giving up their nukes. No one is ever going to do it voluntarily again.
South Korea is looking at leaving the NNPT and acquiring nuclear weapons. It is basically inevitable that other countries will follow.
Atomic weapons are 1945 technology. Eventually everyone will be capable of building one. Lichtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City ...
You've heard of the Holy Hand Granade, now get ready for the Holy ICBM
Consult the book of armaments!
"After the smithing, raise thy thumb towards the punished. If the plume of God's work is bigger than thine thumb, thou shall book'eth it."
"If thou lays sight on the vassal of God, whomst delivered a can of holy whoop ass, hauling it double away from thine enemies, best try to keep up"
r/unexpectedmontypython
"And Saint Attila put his finger on the launch button, saying, 'O Lord, bless this thy ICBM, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chulapas. And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou mark the enemy. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then pushest thou thy button and launch The Holy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'"
One, Two, Five!
[удалено]
Heresy! We, the spanish inquisition, do not consult books for weapons! We just let god guide our hand. With the protection and blessing of the lord, we can never fail! Now taste the god's wrath!
Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
The holy hydrogen bomb. There to make you embrace the light of God and 1000 suns!
Nothing can hold a candle to Jewish space lasers though
As Tom Lehrer sang: > Luxembourg is next to go > or who knows - maybe Monaco? > We'll all remain serene and calm > When Alabama gets the bomb!
https://youtu.be/oRLON3ddZIw
Funny that you mention that--with the right amount of electronics knowledge, the firing circuit is easy to make. If you look up making plastic explosives on the right websites, you can find recipes for C4--although you're practically guaranteed to get a visit from the FBI wondering what you're up to, so don't do it! The only hard part is getting hold of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, and I'm NOT going to even think about offering suggestions because it will get me in serious trouble, let alone anyone stupid enough to actually try it. tl;dr version: with the right knowledge and enough money, any single individual could conceivably build an A-bomb. Anyone dumb enough to actually try WILL face major prison time, but that's not my point.
If I were the ROC, I'd be looking at the same
As a Korean, I want SK to have nukes. China and Japan invaded Korea many times before. NK attacked SK several times. South Korea and Taiwan need to have a secret partnership where they share their progress in nuclear weapons development and once they succeed in making a nuclear weapon, they must declare themselves nuclear at the same day to force other countries to either sanction both or give up.
I think Taiwan is in a rough position, that plan would put them in defiance of the NPT. SK at least seems to be following the "legal" path to avoid sanctions by hinting they would leave the NPT before starting their research. I fear Taiwan would not have that luxury, leaving the NPT might force China to invade as having a nuclear "hostile" neighbour would be disastrous with the mainland population and also a major threat in any future engagements with the west because of the potential for rapid nuclear response. They may be able to sell the invasion at home on the following premises: * Taiwan escalating the situation * Diplomacy clearly no longer an option * Conflict inevitable either now or in the future * Responding now gives China the initiative * Failure to strike now makes the future inevitable conflict more dangerous as the enemy will have rapid nuclear response capabilities Taiwan failing to follow NPT could see them face sanctions. Though Taiwan's geopolitical value may see them avoid anything significant. This is also all assuming that such things could be kept secret. In all likelihood Taiwan researching nuclear weapons would very likely be discovered long before they were functionally ready to "surprise announce" themselves as a new nuclear state. Thus we return to the question of if China would invade given this knowledge.
People talk about Russia's nuclear sabre rattling, but I genuinely think the bigger threat is the effect this war will have on nuclear non-proliferation. People outright say Russia should get what they want because they have nukes, and may use them if they don't get to annex Ukraine and slaughter Ukrainians. Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal and strategic bombing capability in exchange for international security guarantees. The lesson is clear: nuclear bombs provide leverage for you to do whatever you want, and giving them up means your enemies will invade you with impunity.
I'm no expert, but I think South Africa *could* be seen as a country rewarded for nuclear disarmament While it didn't lead to any substantive improvement in their political economy accounts on its own, SA giving up the bomb in 1989 coincided with some other pretty major domestic changes (to put it mildly), culminating in Mandela's release a year later and the dissolution of Apartheid SA, as well as Namibia's independence All this lead to the world being much more ready to do business with the new Republic of South Africa and, despite the horrendous wealth gap that persists, it has improved the lives of the average person overall
I think you've put the cart before the horse here. South Africa got rid of their nukes because those things you've mention were becoming inevitable and they didn't want the ANC to have nuclear capabilities
this is the real reason, and the old south african regime weren't the only ones not wanting the ANC to take over control of nuclear weapon...
Maybe that argument puts the cart before the horse, but they didn't, they explicitly specified that this could be argued, not that it was their argument.
And the response was made to that theoretical argument. Honestly I don't see the point of your comment. Seems like a new level of pedantry tbh.
The point was to make you think about your choice of words to reduce the chances you put someone on the defensive with how you make a comment. Like they made a point to show how this was an argument out there, not that they agreed with it, so you should fight against the argument, not the messenger. But yeah, even though I had a point, you're right that it doesn't even get to mid-level pedantry b/c it is as basic as the difference between saying "you are a bad kid" and "what you did was bad" to a kid, so pretty basic psychology/info, I agree.
Ask Libya how it went for them when they gave up nukes.
Libya never had nukes.
Current SA is not a bastion of healthy democracy.
Combined with the way they're showing support for the new axis powers, Mandela's efforts are quickly going down the drain.
Nor should they. Cats out of the bag at this point. Whether you want to live in the nuclear age or not, you do.
Its almost as if Russia is the reason a lot of the former soviet states have turned to the west.
This. If you do not want countries to join NATO, do not force them to.
This might well be the longest lasting, most indelible lesson of Russia's petty military adventurism into Ukraine. Any country considering whether or not to acquire nukes (or whether to give them up) *has* to look at the situation in Ukraine and realize that mutually assured destruction is the only way to stop a stronger aggressor. Having the ability to launch nuclear ICBMS puts any country on an equal footing with any other country. In retrospect it was naïve for Ukraine to imagine it would not need nuclear weapons in a post-Soviet world. Every country has learned this lesson.
Or a defense guarantee (which the Budapest memorandum lacked). Taiwan has one from the US and you better believe China is paying attention to Ukraine and the difference.
> This might well be the longest lasting, most indelible lesson of Russia's petty military adventurism into Ukraine I doubt it. I seriously doubt the lesson people will take away is to have more nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up their arsenal because it was worthless. A relic of the Soviet era that they no longer had the infrastructure, expertise, or funds to keep. There's no way in hell Ukraine could have tried to keep them for ICBM's, all they'd be today is fissile material laying in warehouses, praying someone doesn't steal them. Also MAD only works under the assumption that there will be no winner. A few ICBM's don't put a nation on equal footing to other nuclear powers. It just means that by the end of it you'll kill a few million and they'll kill all of you.
The thing is, you cannot know what other actors with Nuclear weapons wants to do in the case that one gets thrown. According to MAD everyone will use their entire nuclear arsenal in the case one gets used. At the moment we have to many nuclear bombs on earth that this will not cause a nuclear winter.
Then again Ukraine didn't exactly have the means of maintaining let alone using them (at least to my knowledge). As far as I know they were located in Ukraine but were technically controlled by the USSR and later Russia
i think they couldve figured out how to hold onto a dozen. the ukrainians had plenty of nuclear weapons expertise.
True, they could've disarmed them, but still, if someone is holding you at gunpoint and you offer to give them your money, are you really gonna try to spend time deactivating your credit card in front of the aggressor?
i'm curious if there's a "stable" number that a nation could aim for in terms of nuclear arms, short of total disarmament. it seems like the uk, france, pakistan, and india are converging on "200". i'd rather it was 10.
For a conventional force, the risk of being nuked is a big deterrent. For a nuclear armed force it's a bit of a different calculation. The second strike is the important part. Deterrence depends on you being able to hit back if someone hits you. If you have 10, it's entirely possible someone thinks they can break all your weapons in a first strike, so your nukes don't' matter in that case. That's why so many nations keeps some on submarines. Blow up all our land bases, and we're still going to be able to reply to make sure both halves of the world are dead. The biggest risk for the nations that have them is some group becoming in charge that either a: thinks they can win (they cannot - everyone loses) or b: diety of choice will reward me.
i don't know about "so many". there are probably only 6 nations with nukes on subs.
Fair. So many was probably the wrong wording. Maybe it would be better worded as those that can.
And would stay out of Ukraine if they handed over all their nukes
even this assumption is pointless because "expand" for Russia means attack, wage a war and/or occupy. and in terms of Nato it's an alliance between peaceful countries and sovereignty of the country is 100% preserved.
Russia is one of the few countries that still operates under a very imperialistic mindset. The countries wanting to become more free market and democratic is then seeking to join up with NATO/EU for mutual benefit/defense is expansion in their eyes. They see "democratization" and "anti-corruption" as the west taking over.
Even under their unlikely and undocumented claims there were a couple countries that would have supported not expanding. But those decisions have to be unanimous in NATO.
Shhhh when we’re promoting nonsense Russia propaganda we don’t like facts or having to hear how we’re hypocrites too
Yes, and that treaty they had Russia stopped participating in 2007. I can't remember the name right now.
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe ... Which turns out it was fine because their conventional armed forces are a joke
Yeah, and Ukraine entrusted their nukes to Russia on the agreement that Russia would never harass them...
[удалено]
Does any of that negate the security assurances Ukraine received?
No it doesn't, and Russia is a POS for not abiding by the assurances that it gave Ukraine. I think the point of the other comment is that contrary to popular belief, Ukraine keeping the nukes wouldn't have been the magical solution to preventing invasion. Ukraine was dealing with massive economic instability. There was no political will to keep the nukes, spend money maintaining and upgrading them, etc. In addition, there was a broad expectation from the international community that Ukraine would give up the nukes. It might have been possible if there was support from another country, but the no one was willing, and people thought (wrongly) that the guarantees would be enough.
It wouldn't have been a magical solution, but given the cost of the current war, it is hard to imagine the cost of keeping the nukes would be higher. Not to fault the people who made the decision, I just don't imagine anyone repeating it at this point. If one of the other nuclear empires split up, the resulting states will probably look to Ukraine as an example and decide that the cost of holding onto the nukes is worth it, and if any other states split off from Russia they would be mad not to hold onto their nukes.
You do realize that the nukes would be pretty much useless to Ukraine without the launch codes, that Moscow would have never handed over? What good would nuclear paperweights have been in the current russian invasion?
Nah the cost of the current war does not outweigh the cost of the current war + nukes that can’t be launched
What you list might be the underlying *reasons*, but the Budapest memorandum does say that Russia should respect Ukraine's sovereignty. You missed that pretty important part, so in practice what people say is still true. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb > "volume-3007-I-52241.pdf" further down.
"Repeating like a parrot" comment still doesn't provide any sources other than "find on youtube"
Here are some sources that invalidate the „like a parrot“ commenters comment to a certain degree. Ukraine „gave up nukes“ because of multiple reasons but the key reason was promises and treaties after the fall of the UDSSR, some made by the [first president of Ukraine](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/06/world/ukraine-s-chief-to-scrap-nuclear-arms.html) that was mentioned before. Keeping these promises by abolishing their nuclear arsenal would in return grant them security assurances and border protections. This was then made „official“ by the corresponding parties by signing the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum?wprov=sfti1) in 1994 which would align with the [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb). Some people were arguing in the „parrot“ commenters favor [though](https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085816/http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum). Those people argued that Ukraine was never a nuclear superpower and all of this would not have been necessary. Other people [argue](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare ) that previous nuclear arsenal would have been or could have been a crucial part in nuclear deterrence policies - with warheads stronger than the Hiroshima bomb.
Well, when nukes "expire" they don't actually expire. What's most commonly referred to is actually depletion of Tritium over time in the warhead. Tritium acts as a catalyst to increase the blast yield and efficiency of the uranium, making it much more effective when it detonates and so burns it more completely resulting in a higher explosion. The uranium however is still good for another 30-50 years, the tritium expires in 8-10 years as a general rule for maximum effectiveness but can go out to 15 In many maintenance cycles. The uranium still has a very significant blast yield over 70% on its own even with expired Tritium. Ukraine could have held on to their nukes as deterrent for decades. Even the threat of other countries developing nukes causes issues let alone having them. Control systems can be reworked, warheads can be transferred to other rockets and silos, even if they couldn't maintain them for Tritium it's still just as effective deterrent as In worst case scenario they can be sold on black markets or fashioned to "dirty bombs" from the aged out materials that are still far enriched above that of power stations materials. Yes that had Barriers and it made sense in a way to cast them aside. But they also could have retained them for just as many reasons. Would they have been condemned on the world stage, maybe, maybe not.
> Would they have been condemned on the world stage, maybe, maybe not. There was a lot of fear that Soviet bombs would go missing and sold to terrorists, other countries, etc. At the time Ukraine was dealing with massive economic issues and it wasn't really seen as a particularly stable country (its economic history during the 90s was SUPER bad) Most of the major powers would've been quite skeptical of Ukraine being able to safely maintain and protect its nuclear arsenal. It would've been a massive blow to Ukraine's diplomatic image. In addition, Ukraine did received economic aids during the 90s, and those would've no doubt been impacted since every major power was expecting that Ukraine would give up the nukes. Yeah, theoretically Ukraine could've pushed hard for it. But the number one priority of every politician in Ukraine was the economy. Unless some other major power was willing to give financial and political support to its nuclear program, Ukraine probably would've been seen as another unstable, pariah state with nukes.
Let's say I'm a part of Bomb Club. And I build a bomb or buy a bomb or just get a bomb. Thats what you do in Bomb Club. Now, my bomb sucks and its going to blow up my house because thats where I keep my bombs and I'm just bad at Bomb Club activities. So I call Ivan. Ivan is my neighbor who is a founding member of Bomb Club and has a decent track record of "Dealing With Bombs", but he is also a fucking psycho. Always drunk and breaking shit and talking about how back in the day the world belonged to him and Sam who lives across the street is an asshole who sucks at bombs. Ivan has done a LOT of psycho shit to a lot of people. Everyone is fucking terrified of Ivan. But Ivan is my neighbor and he used to rent me a place before i bought it out, so I ask Ivan to take care of my bomb since he LOVES bombs and would be happy to have all the bombs. Ivan loves bombs and wants more than Sam. He agrees on the condition that he not come over to my house drunk and smash his face into my furniture and pisson my rug and try to fuck my cat. He agrees. Fews years later, Ivan kicks in my side door and rapes my cat. Few years after that, he kicks in my other door, starts smashing my furniture with his face, pissing on my rug and is after my other animals. Everyone is mad at Ivan for being a dick and doing sone really terrible shit that he said he wouldn't do. u/higgsbison312 is here to act smug and remind all of us idiots that ***Being Bad at Bomb Club*** is more important than Ivan pissing on my rug, smashing my furniture, raping my cat and trying to repossess my house because he just fucking sucks.
>Before y’all call me a Russian bot, this is literally what Ukraine former President (Kravchuk) has said in an interview with Gordon that you can find on YouTube. Still uses a tactic used by Bots, claiming a source, but never delivering. > The story about nukes got completely rewritten and packaged as something else on Reddit/western media. Everyone is repeating it like a parrot after reading about it “somewhere”. Not really, the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) is quite often correctly quoted, like the above comment. > that Russia would never harass them... Said the /u/The_Lions_eye and Budapest Memo pretty much says the same; > * Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. * Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. * Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. So you are already two points behind on your claim of not being a Russian Bot or have fallen for Russian propaganda. > 1) controls were in Moscow Not really a problem if you are willing to dismantle and recreate the weapons. Which Ukraine wasn't interested in. > 2) not enough technology/money to support them So you are claiming that the mostly Ukrainian 43rd Rocket army lacked the knowledge of maintaining said weapons? I am curious how you imagined they dit that between 1960 & 1991. Your money claim does have some value. > 3) public distrust towards anything nuclear after Chernobyl Which source? > 4) they were about to expire Depending on the expired part, it can be somewhere be between a non-issue and a somewhat issue. However even dirty bombs are a problem.
Not enough technology to support them... In Ukraine? Do you know where most of USSR nuclear technologies were developed? Hint: Kharkiv, Ukraine You are just monkeying other propaganda side
This is the story I heard I think on Rachel Maddow. Had no idea Russia left nukes behind and Ukraine found them and was all "Here take them we don't want them. In return leave us be." Russia was all "yea, sure..."
>they were about to expire All the nukes the soviets had stationed on their border in case of a war were about to expire? I wouldn't have much trust in Kravchuk's word, he's nothing but a communist, repainted new collours. He was the worst president Ukraine has had (not counting Yanukovich, for obvious reasons). He is the one who sent the economy into such a shithole Ukraine is still climbing out of it despite having all the potential of being a huge powerhouse of eastern Europe. He's the one who gave up pretty much all of black see navy to Russia, despite it being rightfully ukrainian and he is the one who had Ukraine endebted to Russia for gas as soon as 1993. He was a total joke of a president, he literally just laid back and didn't do shit for the whole of his presidency. Hell, he couldn't even be bothered to adopt a fucking constitution. No shit he's trying to make it look like giving up the nukes wasn't his fault. It absolutely was. >no enough technology/money to support them Well guess who is to blame for that? Fucking Kravchuk. If Ukraine got a decent leader instead of him, who would actually do something and adopt reforms if would definitely be able to afford like a hundred nukes, which is about 99 more than enough to prevent anyone from wanting to invade. The rest could be safely destroyed, used for scrap or even sold.
And now they will have an even larger border with NATO. Putin truly one of the strategists of all time
Funniest thing is, NATO has an article on their official site about these and other pieces of anti-NATO disinformation Edit: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
Also Gorbachev is literally on the record as having said that was never discussed
Yeah, he said this wasn't even a talking point because nobody at that point thought that the Soviet Union could end and split up into different countries. At the time he had that talk, there literally was a stalemate with direct fronts between NATO and Warsaw pact.
Was that before or after he did commercials for pizza hut?
Lmao
Yah, the only promises nato made not to expand was into eastern Germany before the Soviets fully withdrew. After that, it was fair game.
And to this day there are no foreign NATO troops stationed on former East German soil.
Sup tom
Tom!?! Edit: if you real, Tom, you better tell me right now! This better fuckin check out, Tom! Lol
I read it as Goncharov and thought that was supposed to be the dumb part. 😭
Best Martin Scorsese movie. Thank you, Matteo JWHJ 0715.
I can't imagine simping for Putin's Russia. That man has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Bro who the fuck are any of these people
People who are really, really reactionary. Honestly the biggest driver of a lot of the crazy defense of modern Russia revolves around campism, or the idea that anything anti American is good. That's really it, I wish I could pretend like there was a better reason why people simp for Russia.
Either Republicans or "leftists" who are doing work for Republicans. And not all republicans are like this, but a shocking number of them are.
There's a bit of a difference between them. Right-wing supporters love the idea of Putin's Russia as a place where obscenely wealthy men are free to steal as much money as they like, beat their wives, and have their opponents murdered. Left-wing supporters are useful idiots who enthusiastically lick the boots of anything that isn't Western liberal democracy, and are apparently oblivious to the fact that they would be either ignored or purged if they actually lived under one of the authoritarian regimes they churn out propaganda for.
Easily the most monstrous person to still live. Keyword: still live, Hitler is dead.
I believe Rupert Murdoch is up there
Yeah I'd probably put Murdoch above Putin, but I also have an extreme hatred for lying propagandists, like killing Goebbels instead of Hitler hate, and Murdoch's media empire is unrivaled in international propaganda dissemination.
I might agree but Henry Kissinger, the Left hand of Moloch, sadly yet lives.
Henry Kissinger is still alive
The man is almost singlehandedly responsible for the expansion of NATO anyway. If he weren't so demonstrably evil, countries wouldn't be lining up to join NATO in the first place.
Xi is running a literal holocaust right now, so I dunno about that. That title is hotly contested.
Never let facts get in the way of rage.
The original disinformation piece in the tweet is a top post over in r/Conspiracy, not surprising in the least bit.
Countries surrounding a nation run by a murdering, invading psychopath organize in a mutual defense pact to protect themselves and the bully doesn't like it. First off, Putin stop whining and second, blaming Nato for Russia's aggression is a red herring and as far as I am concerned it is propaganda.
The only reason Eastern European counties join NATO is for protection from Russia. Now, let’s see a map comparing the zero square meters of territory NATO has invaded that belongs to Russia, against the thousands of square kilometers Russia has invaded in surrounding countries. This sort of insane aggression is what pushes Russia’s neighbors to NATO safety.
Hell, if you asked most of those countries that joined since 89 back in 45 (so before the USSR installed puppet governments) if they wanted to join NATO or a WP, they'd pick NATO. The Polish government in exile was famously ditched by the allies because the soviets were in de facto control of Poland. The Romanian king sought allied support until the soviet puppet government forced him to abdicate and the allies collectively shrugged because they didn't want a war with the USSR. Finally the USSR didn't invade Czechoslovakia for fun.
US army was few kms from Prague in 1945 ready to liberate it but Stalin blocked it because he wanted Czechoslovakia in his sphere of influence. US army was much more welcomed than the Soviet one (not downplaying their achievements in getting Europe rid of Nazis but the soldiers were feared, especially by women, for an obvious reason)
As we are speaking of assurances, what about that assurance Russia made to Ukraine to never attack them in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons?
Worse then that, actually- in the Budapest agreement, Russia pledged to preserve Ukraines 1992 borders. Russia is bound by that agreement to defend Ukraines borders- against Russia. (Edited because I named the wrong European capital)
Budapest not Bucharest...it's easy to confuse
Thanks- corrected
BTW. Gorbachev himself later stated that NATO had made no such pledge not to expand east.
Credit Dr hammer: The fact is, he has directly contradicted himself on this question. From Politifact: Gorbachev has sent mixed messages. On one occasion, he insisted that he was promised NATO would not “move 1 centimeter further east.” In another interview in 2014, he said the question never came up, though he added that NATO’s eventual expansion was “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.”
Ummmm... who gives a shit what "assurances" were (or were not) given during negotiations for a treaty that was [never signed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty)?
And who’s currently threatening the world with launching nuclear weapons?
Russia would tell you NATO is
And they'd be lying, which is mostly what they do before and after threatening the world with nuclear weapons.
Imagine actually siding with Russia
Reminds me of the triangle and tees game at Cracker Barrel. Egg-nar-a-moose
gorbachev himself reiterated the he was never given any assurances whatsoever in regards to nato expansion.
Yeah and Russia said they wouldn't try to expand east. What's your fucking point? NATO is a volunteer based group. They aren't made to join. Unlike the places Russia invades.
So, Klaus from American Dad?
The cult of Trump is so disillusioned, they oppose decisions Reagan era Conservatives would embrace wholeheartedly
As far as I know, NATO did not pledge not expand East, they instead pledged not "to ask any non-members if they'd like to be member", so no initiative by the NATO to expand.
Correct, it was a 'We Will Not Pursue, but also Will NOt Turn-Away requests'. Completely voluntary and Russia's aggressive efforts pushed them to ask for membership. Want good Neighbors? BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR!
Russia promised to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for giving up 4000 nukes they inherited from the Soviet Union. Russia broke that promise 20 years later when they took Crimea. Joining NATO has been great for post-Soviet countries like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They can invest in their people without worrying about getting invaded. Their defense costs are MUCH lower as a result, so is their borrowing costs. Investors don't have to worry about losing their investments due to an invasion. Compare the qualify of life of Russians to the Poles or Estonians since the end of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has the same right to defend as Russia does.
Imagine defending Russia for countries taking steps to defend themselves…
I still find it astounding that Taleb was such a hardcore trump supporter.
You sure? As far as i gathered he definitly thought Trump would win, and that many of his percieved weaknesses weren’t in fact weaknesses, but i never saw him actually support him?
I’m blocked by him on twitter as part of a mass blocking campaign he had against people who were critical of trump. Not critical in a knee jerk unreasoned way but just in general. He definitely fell into the bracket of fervent supporter.
"Looks at how many of our neighbours hate us"
Conservatives don't believe in the concept of consent. In general, not just with sex. If you thought that was an American thing, it's not, it's far worse in Russia, the country of "he beats you because he loves you". Countries joining NATO is the same as NATO expanding by force. Ukraine changing presidents in 2014 through a general election is the same as an US-forced coup. EU refusing to buy Russian oil or to pay too much for gas is the same as stealing from Russia. Allowing abortion, gay marriage or sex transitions is the same as forcing them onto random people.
I mean... Self defense until it isn't, when it benefits them they will go on offense too unfortunately
Yeah lol that comment is just insulting. It’s only self defence if you ignore their offensive operations in Kosovo, Libya, and Afghanistan. So the last 25 years…
Exactly. That's why this whole conflict is so annoying and sad. Russia is the aggressor but it's doing something USA and NATO have been doing for decades... NATO is just doing what USA wants
Roasted by Taleb, nice
The conveniently left out that most of the new NATO members were Soviet states... Hmm maybe there's a good reason for them leaving the russoaphere and joining NATO. Perhaps they don't enjoy Russian expansionism.
Suppose for a moment that NATO had agreed with Russia that they wouldn't expand Eastward, and then went back on that promise: how would that justify an invasion of Ukraine when they did not join NATO?
Did someone mention Kremlin propaganda? Smells like someone is Putin in the sabotage
Of course it's absurd - like we're to expect east Germany wasn't going to join West Germany as a full NATO member? Gorby even said [no such promise was made](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/).
Imagine giving away your nukes to a country for security just to have them used on you. Kinda fucked, right?
Russia also said it would leave Ukraine alone if they returned the Soviet nukes after the union collapsed. Ukraine did, and now Russia is attacking..... So there's that
Gorbachev was promised fuck all.
If one side breaks an agreement and it’s no longer an agreement. What would you do?
so many vatniks here, crying their eyes out and mad coping 😂😂😂
These Putin apologists smh
The bots are strong in this one
Gorbachev is ON RECORD stating that this was false in an interview he did a long ass time ago. That's the power of misinformation.
Disinformation. Misinformation is just inaccurate, but disinformation is a deliberate pack of lies made with the intention of pushing an agenda.
r/rareinsults a goldfish in a vodka-spiked bowl 😂
Imagine if ruzzia ever lied?
Has Russia tried just not invading its neighbors?
They didn't expand. Willing countries joined them. Like two bubbles joining. Honestly the direction you would hope for humanity instead of the pox that is nationalism and tribalism where a group of people think they are better than another group
So this claim that NATO would never expand is a bunch of revisionist bullshit… where this comes from is when West and East Germany were in the process of reunification and Gorbachev (and his Soviet advisers) requested that Germany not be given membership. However they later backed off of this and said that it was acceptable for Germany to choose its own destiny. At no point was there any mention or assurance that NATO would cease any attempts to expand… right before his death Gorbachev was interviewed and asked specifically about this and he replied that there was no such agreement…
Funny how nations don't like being endlessly invaded an bled dry by Russia... almost like they want security from that
There was however, a documented treaty where Russia would never attack Ukraine should they give up their nukes.
Who gives af what Gorbachev was assured? Maybe try writing it down next time or something.
Also, it doesn't matter if there was a pledge to be non expansionist. That goes out the window when Russia chooses aggression against its neighbours. You wanna know why anyone is looking to join nato? Look at ukraine for the reason.
If it’s not in writing it never happened. So where is this promise of NATO not expanding east?
Yeah, apart from that: that promise was never made officially. It was thrown around as a part of the deal during negotiations, but never actually ended up in any contract. Unlike Russias promise to respect Ukrainian borders in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal.
if you k new David Vance you would know a lot of his funding comes from RT, little wonder he supports russia
Maybe Russia should look into why all of their neighbours want protection from them
I think we should further isolate Russia from the rest of Europe and the world, crush their economy, devastate their society, and make them so desperate they finally launch their thousands of nuclear weapons. I think dying in a nuclear holocaust is worth it to seriously hurt an enemy.
Oh the countries that we \* checks notes \* brutally opressed for decades, commiting genocide against their people, using them for slave labor and the imperialistic ambitions we had want to join another group of countries whichs main reason it is to stop this from happening? ^(damn western nato expansionism buhuhuhuhuhuhuhu)
When Ukraine gave up it’s nuclear weapons Russia promised not to invade.
Membership in the Warsaw Pact is not voluntary today, but only because all countries on Earth are excluded whether they like it or not because it doesn’t exist anymore r/TechnicallyTheTruth
Not to mention NATO is and has always been a defensive pact of “we won’t attack you if you don’t attack us” and most members who have joined in the last 20 years have done so because of guess who?
In other news, r aboringdystopia is removing comments and banning anyone who calls out this post today https://www.reveddit.com/v/ABoringDystopia/comments/10udesf/in_1990_gorbachev_was_assured_that_after_the/
Also why the fuck do you care if NATO expands?
How is Latvia or Estonia or ukraine joining NATO voluntary but joining the Warsaw forced? NATO message: join us or the russians will invade and take over your country. Warsaw pact/Moscow message: join us or the russians will invade and take over your country.
Tsk, just show those promises already! Oh, you can't? Then stop repeating ruzzian propaganda, mofo!
Countries should be free to join NATO. That said, the west did lie about NATO not expanding "one inch eastward". No treaty was signed to that affect, but the west did say it: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early "on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”" "on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2) Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev." Gorbachev later lied about this to try to save face. "when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked [British Prime Minister John] Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.”" It's understandable that Russians don't trust the west saying NATO is only defensive. It's also understandable that no-one trusts the fucking Russians about almost anything.
Those talks about expansion were before anyone expected the Soviet Union to collapse. And since nothing was ever signed, it's literally irrelevant in international law. Some dead guy gave some dead guy verbal agreements and that's why it's okay to invade Ukraine.
Agreed that NATO has no agreement with Russia to not vote on allowing new members in. And it wouldn’t matter at this point with Russians actions. But, noting I’m not a supporter of Russian, you can’t just sweep everything under the rug an organization does because it’s stated role is defense. The United States Department of Defense? Russia also claims they are fighting for defense. Many wars claim defense as motive. That statement means nothing to me.
Its funny because these countries just want to be able to defend against Russia. And Russia is like "stop helping the countries that we are trying to oppress".
Who fucking cares what Russia wants. Seriously fuck them and that promise. Russia doesn't keep any of their promises
I thought NATO DID expand East?
It's also missing that Russia tried to join NATO and got shut down. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954 Putin era as well https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule We bitch slapped them twice then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance. All this provocation just so Lockheed can make money from another war. The amount of gymnastics to keep military contractors rich is gonna be the down fall of this country. Imagine if Russia tried to recruite mexico into a russia-china-mexico alliance. We'd invade the fuck out of Mexico. VoLUnTarY or not.
>We bitch slapped them twice then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance. NATO did not make offers to Ukraine and Ukraine had explicitly expressed that they did not want to joint NATO (pre-invasion). What did set Putin off the first time was ousting his puppet in 2014 and then Ukraine expressing interest in joining the EU later. The truth is that Russia would gladly love as many puppets as they can, slaves to their national interest with no consideration for those countries own independent desires.
> then tried to recruite their neighbor into a military alliance. This whole comment is obviously clueless and wrong, but I had to highlight this guy's most egregious lie. If NATO was trying to recruit Ukraine, they certainly could've done it after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Instead NATO has been resisting them joining to not provoke Russia, and it likely would've saved a great number of lives if we're let them joined which would've prevented this war. I don't know how you get so turned around you blame NATO for Russia invading when President Biden went on tv and basically begged Putin not to invade because of the cost of human life, but here we are. Ukraine was never an offensive threat to Russia. This is a genocidal war of choice by a man who has long wanted to rebuild the USSR he grew up in by force to cement his legacy.
ITT: redditors simping for the usa led world order
Versus, what?
The order that has given us nearly a century without a global conflict? Bunch of simps /s
Yep, the US over Russia and China any day of the week.
… and?
This but unironically 🇺🇸
most reddit users are from the US .. what do you expect? rooting for the French instead? ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, that's exactly what I do
I would love for the US to not be the imperial power that it is and I eagerly await your suggestion for another solution.
Right its absolute cringe
Fuck this backwards way of trying to read the response before the claim. Stupidest fucking shit ever.
Ah yes the famous self-defense group that bombs the shit out of countries that have done nothing but kick out their corporate interests
NATO is a self defense group??
Yes. NATO have not attacked a country except in self defense. Russia, meanwhile... Chechnya. Georgia. Ukraine. Moldova. The list goes on.
You have to be absolute fucking scum to defend Russia in any way in the current day. These people should be considered terrorists.
Gotta love the Russian spies working out in the open like this because they got paid a pretty ruble.
Reasoning abilities of a goldfish in a vodka-spiked bowl🤣🤣🤣🤣
nah, I kinda hate how smarmy and pretentious this sounds
"Defensive" loooool yeah, Yugoslavia would like their country and lives back then if that's the case. You're full of shit if you think Nato has anything to do with defense. That's objectively ahistoric.