There is no such thing as between the lines. This isn't a philosophy essay. It either stipulates this explicitly or not. In this case, it does not. It would be prudent for people to finally learn what contracts are.
At that level these are not really contracts either. At most, declarations of intent.
And as such, it was indeed about providing some kind of joint assurance for the independence of Ukraine with some hint of promise of assistance in need: in context it is in exchange for Ukraine not becoming a nuclear-capable military power.
Nope. I feel like this is a stillborn treaty, no one had any real obligations except Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal. Maybe it was designed that way intentionally, to exchange nukes for nothing, similarly to them fooling indigenous people to exchange gold for beads. That's how I feel.
In den Zeiten der Atommächte, verzichtet ein Land auf die einzig wichtige Sache, die eine unabhängige und sichere Existenz auf diesem Planeten ermöglicht.
Nun ja, Schnee drüber. Fehler sind Menschlich. Nicht wahr?
Dummheit wird zwar bestrafft. Aber leider nicht die Politik, die diese Dummheit verursacht hat. Leider nur die Menschen die in dieser Politik leben.
Die Ukraine sollte schon heute mit dem Bau beginnen. Die Vorrausetzungen sind doch da und der Vertrag ist doch "Geschichte". Und da es "Made in Ukraine" wird, muss nicht geachtet werden, wie tief das in Russland fliegen darf. *grins
In fact article 5 also doesn't specify that countries must use armed force. It just says they will assist with what action they deem necessary. Although this can include armed force. Article 5 has been invoked 1 time ( by US ) and all parties did not provide armed force. So no guarantees with nato admission anyway.
"will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
The Treaty doesn't say that. Every NATO member gets to decide for itself what response, if any, to provide. Article V is not an actual security guaranty, and if Ukraine were to be admitted to NATO, there is no guaranty that any NATO country would respond militarily to a future Russian attack.
Of course, NATO credibility would be on the line, so, maybe, there would be a response. But it's hard to say -- no one really wants to fight WWIII against a nuclear armed opponent, which I think should be understandable to everyone.
That’s true, neither Iran nor China or NK will risk. Same is valid for Nato countries as well
Strange war, it’s obvious that nobody is able to achieve goals and Ru should have offered peace negotiations and get the fck away from UA, like China retrieted from Vietnam
NATO is created to fight nuclear superpower. Attack on NATO country is considered attack on each country and if the goal is not reached, that will mean the fail of implementing article 5.
I mean, the US invoked article 5 after 9/11. I’d say it is somewhat debatable whether all NATO countries not rushing to attack Afghanistan is a testament to Article 5 not providing a guarantee.
If they are hesitatant to join the world's superpower at the height of its strength in a far away conflict against a tiny opponent, think how much less reluctant they will be to battle a large nuclear armed opponent right on their doorstep.
I'm reminded of several famous quotes on treaties.
-----------------------------------------
"Treaties are observed as long as they are in harmony with interests.” — Napoleon
"Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last." - Charles de Gaulle
"All treaties between great states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle for existence." - Otto von Bismarck.
There was no rational plan that could have made the Afghanistan war worthwhile. All Al-Qaeda leaders and soldiers were replaceable, and the U.S. couldn't commit genocide against the entire population to eliminate the fanatics. Yet, many countries still contributed troops on the ground. This war ended up as most Europeans expected: a significant loss of resources and time.
That kind of thinking led to the rise of Nazi Germany. Why would the French and English sacrifice their lives for the Poles? Both nations paid dearly for their lack of rational foresight.
I think the reason not to send troops to Afghanistan wasnt build on fear, but more along the Lines that «we dont think this is the correct response, we dont see the need for this war etc.
And each time they do there are consequences of varying degrees. Obama's failure to live up to US obligations in 2014 has resulted in nearly a million casualties and likely a trillion dollars wasted.
Exactly, non of these should happen. What Ukraine did to the nukes is what Gandhi did to the civil resistance. It was the first precedent of denuclearisation in the history! And it’s sad to see the world, particularly the nations on the treaty, couldn’t take it as ultimate good for the world.
Idk what are the reasons that the US currently doesn’t allow strike into Russia, whether it’s the end of the Biden presidency and they don’t want to make any strategic decisions for the next administration or it’s mere stupidity, but the more it’s going like that the more it stinks poo-poo
It's important to keep in mind that the newly formed Ukrainian government did not possess any means to operate the Soviet nuclear weapons left in Ukrainian territory, no codes, none of the infrastructure. So saying they "gave up their nukes" is a real stretch. Those were Soviet, not Ukrainian nukes.
Whether Ukraine can quickly develop its own nukes or not I don't know -- they have nuclear material but they don't have enrichment facilities or other infrastructure, but Tom's [edit: Cook's] thesis is plausible to me, and frightening. Even more frightening because it's hard to see why the Ukrainians wouldn't go that way, if they could. I would, if I were Ukraine. That's the infernal logic of nuclear weapons at work, which may end us.
Only thing which gave me pause was the statement that Ukraine's MIC will be second only to the U.S. and China's -- really? Ukraine's MIC will exceed Russia's? Have a look at some stats to see the magnitude of change which would be required to get to that, I would suggest, before writing such stuff.
Military production, production of all the materiel required to sustain large-scale warfare, requires industrial and financial capacity, and to translate it into combat power you have to apply PPP. It is doubtful that the U.S., deeply indebted and considerably deindustrialized, and extremely expensive, matches China in this, and lags Russia in some important areas, like munitions. Ukraine is in a different league altogether, and with population now below 30 million and economy in ruins, is unlikely ever to get into this league, at least in our lifetimes.
THAT, however, is NOT the point - nor do I find it a reason not to publish this.
What does matter (to me) is that Benjamin's conclusions about the whys and hows are 'right on the mark': it's precisely 'the actions of other nuclear powers' that have limited the number of Ukrainian options to only two.
Well, sure, and I agree with all of that. I agreed with the main point of the article from the beginning, the other stuff was just a quibble.
We drift into dangerous territory, we drift, it seems to me, in the same direction as we did in the 1890's and 1900's, mindlessly towards global catastrophe. "Sleepwalking" in Chris Clark's phrase. Yes, we didn't leave the Ukrainians any other choice, and it's hard to see how it ends well for any of us.
The final idea you get from the world experience is that you need to go full nuclear to rrealistically be a sovereign Nation.
The lesson of this first two decades is that if you have the nukes, then You can shape your own reality. And it's not only NK and Iran, look what happens when you not got them: Irak, Libia, Germany.
We are going to live in a much more dangerous world.
Everything I have read states that Ukraine had zero codes and no possibility of using any of the 1,700-odd warheads left on its territory. If this is wrong, I would be glad to be educated. Sources?
That's not to say that they could not have been hacked. The codes only control the detonation mechanism, which surely could be rewired. Most nuclear weapons work by detonation of small conventional explosive lenses to implode a hollow sphere of fissionable material, or to push hemispheres or wedges of fissionable material together to reach critical mass (even fusion, i.e. thermonuclear bombs work similar to this, as the fusion reaction is set off by a small fission primary charge). Once the device is built (right shape and configuration of the right material), it wouldn't be rocket science to set it off.
There is another highly cynical use of Ukraine's Soviet nuclear weapons in lieu of surrendering them for worthless promises: nuclear blackmail. A nasty and highly immoral foreign policy to be sure, but would Russia want one or more of a former Soviet nuclear weapon to end up in the hands of an anti-Russian terrorist source? Same comment but with respect to the West. Basically, Ukraine would not need the ability to "light one off" to make possession of nuclear weapons nonetheless useful. Again, sorry for the cynical observation, but I perceive that the blackmail option could have been one viable foreign policy option for Ukraine. The international system is not an environment for idealism, especially not in this day an age.
No, I am not advocating for this option, but at least it should have been placed on the table for discussion.
I just wanted to close the loop on the possible roles that Soviet nukes in Ukraine could play. I presume you are suggesting that the Ukrainian nuclear threat would not have deterred Putin.
When the weapon is physically located on the territory of the country I think it’s a stretch to say it doesn’t possess it. There was a context and the context was such that the West pressured Ukraine to give up the weapons and this is a fact. Yet the takes such as a lack of codes, infrastructure or that it was soviet not ua nukes are Russian propaganda narratives.
There are different points of view on this, and it is beyond any doubt that the West definitely pressured Ukraine to hand them over. But you degrade yourself and destroy your own credibility by referring to points of view you disagree with as "Russian propaganda narratives". Wise men may disagree about lots of things, including this. This aggressive passion for unanimity, this intolerance of disagreement, is a really Soviet quality, which Ukrainians need to get rid of if they want to join the West.
Thanks for the advice. Let me to put other way, less heated up. I think the take about code, infrastructure and ussr are more excuses to justify what happened back then. The process of military forces division among ex soviet republics was complex and you can’t take it down to these.
"Heated up" is ok, if it's intellectually honest. Would you like to say something like "the West fucked Ukraine"? If that's what you're saying, then I totally agree. The West fucked Ukraine then and is fucking Ukraine now. I will be surprised if you hate us less than the Russians, when this is all over. For what little it may be worth, I apologize.
The West helped, helps and will continue to help one way or another. The West is diverse. And there is no implication that some of the key players aren’t prone to err. It’s quite opposite, we all do.
Let me remind you what was happening before 2022, with widespread blindness about Ukraine’s agency. That was corrected. And that is the biggest difference between Ukrainian relationships with the western countries and Russia, when the former are partners the later is the enemy, and the nature of these relationships have little in common and opposite dynamics over time.
Therefore, based on what you say, do not expect that Ukraines will hate you cause you’re westerner. They will hate you if your Russian sympathiser, what I assume you’re not, aren’t you?
Well, how about a yes-brainer: if you have a thousand working nuclear weapons on hand but no password, how hard is it to make them work as compared to having nothing? Do you throw away the car once the ash tray is full?
I think the truth is somewhere in between here. Surely the Ukrainians could have hacked the detonator devices. But remember this was at the height of the era of peace and good feelings, we were all friends then, and Ukraine has huge economic problems to think about and concentrate on. Nobody imagined in their wildest dreams that 30-odd years later, Russia would be invading Ukraine. Ukraine was hoping for a lot of help from the West -- as Russia did too in those days! And so did what was asked of them. With tragic results, I guess.
If the argument is that Ukrainians didn't really want to keep and pay for maintaining the nukes they could not imagine a reason for using, then that is correct.
If the argument is that once you don't have the password then getting rid of them is the obvious course of action (as the comment I replied to claimed) then that is absurd.
Edit: as long as the passwords are secure it does not matter who has the nukes, right? What an insane take.
Lo de que "nadie se imaginaba que Rusia invada Ucrania algún día" me suena ridículo, desde siempre para los rusos sí Ucrania no es de ellos, no es de nadie.
Ya existían videojuegos con ése conflicto hipotético, Su-27 Flanker de 1995, escenario: Crimea.
It's almost not worth replying but I guess I will. Launch codes are encrypted keys. Ukraine did not possess them, Russia did. The weapons were useless without them. Ukraine could not 'hack' them. If you think you could simply run a password cracking algorithm to break in then can I suggest you take up a career as a Hollywood screenwriter because they don't live in the real world either.
At the end of the control device are two wires which send a bit of DC power to the explosive lenses which trigger the nuclear explosion. I don't think it would be rocket science to hot wire that. You would just need to produce your own control unit and connect it to those two wires, substituting for the Soviet one. Not such a big job if you know how to take the warhead apart, and Ukraine had plenty of engineers left over from the old Soviet nuclear weapons programs.
Which link? The only one I saw was to Wikipedia, and that article said nothing of the kind. Anyway I know a bit about Ukraine's MIC myself. It's dwarfed by Russia's, and Ukraine doesn't have the resources to build it up to the scale of the MICs of any of the superpowers. This has to be considered when designing a security architecture for Europe which will prevent this from happening again. Ukraine is not going to be safe without some kind of stable, mutually beneficial deal between NATO and Russia where the two sides don't threaten each other. That's extremely unpalatable, but that's just reality. It's going to require, probably, UN peacekeepers in a DMZ for the first period after the war. There's just no other way to do this not involving nuclear holocaust, or the full destruction and occupation of Ukraine.
My bad. I missed of the bit about having to dig deeper. This is what I found:
But Ukraine’s military engineers have already shown surprising skill in jury-rigging older weapons systems with more modern firepower. And over the last year alone, Ukraine’s defense companies have built three times as many armored vehicles as they were making before the war and have quadrupled production of anti-tank missiles, according to Ukrainian government documents reviewed by The New York Times.
"Funding for research and development is forecast to increase by eight times this year — to $1.3 billion from $162 million — according to an analysis of Ukraine’s military budget through 2030 by Janes, a defense intelligence firm. Military procurement jumped to a projected 20-year high of nearly $10 billion in 2023, compared with a prewar figure of about $1 billion a year."
It's chalk and cheese to compare arms sales with military production which what I think might have happened here. It must be very tempting to do so because while they are at war Ukraine is not selling anything abroad, but arms sales are only ever a fragment of a MIC not its entirity.
Btw, I agree completely with you about the options Ukraine faces.
Perceived necessity is the #1 growth agent for any MIC. Next is money. Ukraine is the test bed for western MIC, making it also Ukrainian MIC. #2 is money.
When counting US MIC do you include BAE? A British company operating in the US? I think you do. It's about production capacity. Not the location of your headquarters.
The money for Ukrainian MIC will not be hard to find.
Ukraine had gained positive control of tactical nukes(they could use them) and negative control(could prevent Russia from launching strategic nukes from Ukraine) of strategic nukes and was in the process of getting positive control for the strategic nukes according to NPR reports. They only stopped the process of converting strategic nukes to fully Ukrainian delivery and control systems due to the Budapest memorandum.
sadly, that's never going to happen. as much as I wished it to be possible, there are too many technical, finalization and political obstacles. (I'm a nuclear engineer, btw) in addition, it was not the case a fews decades ago, but Iran in 2024 is way more advance in science and technology then Ukraine these days.
Indeed: Iran has everything - all the 'parts' - necessary to make multiple nukes. But, also a '(nuclear) fatwa' not to have any in _assembled_ condition. Is a bit of predicament, and there's a similar element of ambiguity like in the case of Israel - at least until here's a situation that might make the reasoning obvious.
Oh, yes. How hard it is to hear now. At the starting positions in the 90s, we had nuclear status and space status, and now we are more backward than religious fanatics, and our economy is generally in some kind of ass. I am so ashamed right now that I will burn from this shame right now. It's all thanks to this oligarchy, which seems like bugs have invaded Ukraine and are sucking all the juices out of it. With such a marauding elite, we have no chances and prospects in the future. When people become disillusioned with the system, it is the worst thing that can happen, it is the eternal scenario of all wars, revolutions and riots. For example, if we take Ukraine and Poland and their initial starting positions in the 90s, now it is clear who has risen from the bottom and achieved success, and who is in complete ass. This speaks volumes about the quality of the elites and their ambitions. We have no chance with these idiots, with this neo-feudal oligarchic system, who appropriated all the merits of ordinary Ukrainians and now call themselves iron leaders.
well, it's not only oligarchy. It's deeper than that: serfdom of the 19th century and oppression and terror of the 20th (all brought from moscow), changed our priorities and panning horizons.
Oligarchy is not responsible for the fact that our children don't want to study (look at PISA by OECD)
«Oligarchy is not responsible for the fact that our children don't want to study» – Complete delusion. This criminal plutocracy, on the contrary, does everything possible to ensure that the population is as uneducated as possible, as stupid as possible and does not get involved in their corruption cases. They are extremely interested in this. They will always make sure that there are many more non-thinkers than people who think and are interested. Yes, this is also superimposed on the slavish mentality that remained in the majority from the Soviet Union. This is the Asian model of state management where it is necessary to unquestioningly obey the higher ranks.
Nope. "the oligarchy" actually needs people to work for them. Akhmetov (who is a criminal) even started Metinvest Polytechnic, which seems to be a decent university.
So, no, it's our fault that our kids are not studying hard enough.
Your logic is interesting. That is, according to your logic, for example, the maniac Putin or the murderer Kadyrov founded some institute with the money stolen from you, so now you need to serve them, because they threw you a bone from their table?
What do you think of this old news about Akhmetov's dark affairs?
I quote: “The National Commission, which carries out state regulation in the fields of energy and utilities, ignored the decision of the National Security and Defense Council, and compensated Akhmetov UAH 714 million for the supply of electricity to the temporarily occupied territories of Donbass.” That is, Ukrainians have been constantly raising tariffs since 2014 in order to pay for good living conditions for the occupiers and murderers, and Akhmetov from Poroshenko received the money for this. Some part of this money also went to the Kremlin through Andrii Kobolev, who was once awarded an order by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Probably for robbing Ukrainians. Example two: “Money was withdrawn from Yanukovych Jr.’s bank through Poroshenko’s bank. We are talking about approximately 2 billion hryvnia registered in the names of dummies. During 2016-2017, about 2 billion hryvnia were withdrawn from Alexander Yanukovych’s bank “VBR”, which were registered under the names of dummies.”
LigaNet: “Problems arose with the former adviser to the fifth president, Yuri Biryukov. In the summer, his place was searched in connection with possible abuses during the purchase of body armor, uniform sets and tents. According to the State Bureau of Investigation, bulletproof vests are shot through, and tents and clothing are allegedly of poor quality. These actions, the investigation believes, could have caused about UAH 100 million in losses to the state. Recently, the SBI reported suspicions to Biryukov’s friend, General Dmitry Marchenko, in this case. He is suspected of inaction by the military authorities during the period of mobilization. He holds the position of head of the Main Directorate for Development and Support of Material Support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to investigators, Marchenko, while occupying this position, knew that the quality of body armor was poor - and still authorized their purchase. The former head of the National Commission that carries out state regulation in the fields of energy and utilities, appointed by Poroshenko, Dmitry Vovk, who was a manager of the Roshen company, is hiding from NABU abroad. He is suspected of involvement in causing UAH 18.8 billion in losses from the introduction of the so-called Rotterdam+ formula. The profit from this formula was received by Rinat Akhmetov’s DTEK group of companies.»
see my previous comment: Akhmetov is a criminal and should be imprisoned. he (and many other oligarchs) are responsible for many problems in Ukraine (but the collapse of science and education is not one of them)
Thank you so very much. --- It is curious that international law is just some rambling rules which nobody respects and which every one can use to its advantage. Mongolia signs up and ratifies some treaty and does not deliver. The Convention on genocide entered into force in 1951 and has 153 state parties as of June 2024. Member states are prohibited from engaging in genocide and obligated to pursue the enforcement of this prohibition. All perpetrators are to be tried regardless of whether they are private individuals, public officials, or political leaders with sovereign immunity. But Russia can lead its war of genocide against Ukraine without obstacles. The ICRC voted the RRC and Pawel Savchuk on its global board just four months after Russia started its war of destruction with genocidal intention against Ukraine. Even Guterres declared that the Un and the security council is dead. But nobody does anything. Sorry, I am also rambling. Of despair.
I agree with you but I am currently having a bit of trouble with the moral lessons given to Mongolia in the media. Who will defend it if it enforces this arrest warrant? The USA? Europe? China... ?Will there be new sanctions against Russia? 3,485 km of borders with Russia, a population in 2022 of 3.398 million inhabitants, an economy and trade that depend enormously on Russia. Putler is playing on velvet. There are international conventions, treaties, that gives a good conscience but only the balance of power counts in the end.
The geographical status of Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia is mirrored by the country's economic dependency on both nations. Hence the delicate balancing act needed to hold off a reckoning by either should Mongolia be so bold or foolhardy to offend its neighbours. The days of the Golden Horde are long gone.
'Literally anything'? A banana milkshake? You flatter yourself if you think your view is somehow 'honest', unless you have convincing insider knowledge. Do try less vulgarity in future, it really grates.
Point taken on the vulgarity. But yes, an explanation of that kind is always possible. For example: a thief really needed the money. It doesn't matter any more than "we trade a lot" as a reason to actively sabotage rule of law.
They shouldn't allow Putin's visit and your questions are answered. Since they invited him, Mongolia assumed the responsibility of breaking the Convention. I have the same feeling, that international organizations and conventions are purely optional nowadays. We have a huge number of examples. There's no gentlemen's agreement anymore. Diplomacy has set. The Middle Age is coming back.
I guess Ukraine can easily assemble a/the bomb. But when is it supposed to use it? When the orcs are at the gates of Kyiv or just crossing Dnipro again? What will be the retaliation if they use it first?
Or are they supposed to use only in a response to a nuke attack? What about if it is tactical nuke…
Anyway, I don’t think it will be a game changer. Then, to be really effective as a “restraint” (to whom and what kind of attack are separate questions) Ukraine should announce it loudly and proudly but this will trigger sanctions from the Club, and probably end of the conventional aid.
As for Article 5, I think it is already dead. Just don’t see Biden, Harris or Trump acting on it unless the States is attacked.
now it changes as well as nothing to UA. but when the war will be set on pause (2025-2026), this will help to prevent second attack on UA in 2028-29 (maybe)
We don't attack Russia because we presume they would nuke us. The same would be true for Ukraine, if Ukraine had nukes. I hate to say it, as a proponent of nuclear disarmament, but having nuclear weapons is the ultimate deterrent against invasion. Because everyone presumes that a state with nuclear weapons would indeed use them, even at the risk of starting a nuclear holocaust, if their very existence is threatened. Again, I hate to say it, but if Ukraine managed to developed nuclear weapons, I doubt any of the Western backers would blame them, considering everything which has happened, and there would be no interruption of aid. If I were Zelensky, I would be on that yesterday. But as an American -- I hope it doesn't happen.
People should stop waffling about NATO. This will only work when USA works.
Lets say the election paralyzes the US and Russia invades Baltic states, do you really think that EU without USA would go to war over Narva?
The ONLY guarantee are nukes, because in this way the security of a country depends on the country and not some coalition that sooner or later (has history has shown) breaks down.
If Russia attacks Baltics, EU core will have to go for a war or EU will cease to exist. Even if Germany will be hesitant, Finland, Poland and Sweden will respond militarily, and France (see their current presence in the Baltics and Romania) will join. ESPECIALLY if USA is out and Germany is hesitant. There are no vacuums in geopolitics.
People (including Pudding) tend to underestimate ruthlessness of EU when it comes to its vital interests and the speed of geopolitical changes in such moments. When Putin goes after Eurozone it becomes the zero sum game for core EU.
Before the full scale invasion I had a discussion on Twitter with one well known expert about Finland and Sweden joining NATO in case Putin attacks Ukraine. I was claiming they will join, he was skeptical, quoted opinion polls from Sweden and Finland showing that public opinion in these countries was not in favor of joining NATO. Where are they now?
But what would EU do, exactly? EU doesn't even have an army. The Baltics are not defensible by conventional means -- the only land route is through the Suwalki Gap, which the Russians could close in an hour. Letting the Russians have the Baltics would be suicide for NATO's credibility, but what, practically, would we do?
The only good news is that there isn't any good reason for the Russians to attack the Baltics, unless there is ALREADY a full scale conventional war with NATO, and they fear blockade of the Gulf of Finland -- which was how the Winter War started. But if we get to that point, then the Baltics will be the very least of our problems. God forbid.
Takes BACK Kaliningrad? I think there is some confusion about the history here. Kaliningrad oblast' is the Northern half of East Prussia (as I'm sure you know). Königsberg was founded in the 13th C by the Teutonic Knights, who had conquered the area from the Old Prussians, who had lived there for a thousand years before that. Was even the capital of all of Prussia until 1701. If anyone could "take back" Kaliningrad, it would be the Germans. The treaty which divided East Prussia between Poland and the USSR was signed by the U.S., U.K. and USSR. But I guess you're joking, or trolling.
That's why there are German troops stationed in the Baltic states, and there's a project to locate a whole brigade in Estonia, if my memory serves me correctly. So, Germany won't be able to avoid the fight, if it happens
Not quite. In case of any perceived weakness (like internal turmoil in USA due to election) Russia will be using Baltics to dismantle NATO. There are two avenues Daugavpils region in Latvia but more likely the city of Narva in Estonia - 95% Russian speaking city that has a powerplant that supplies a large part of Estonia.
The city could be taken by their forces within hours and after that they can apply the usual peoples republic scenario and just overrun the country or part of it quite quickly. From Russian perspective the cost for this operation would be ridiculously small. As if Europe indeed would declare war on Russia (which no one believes either in the east nor west) then Russia can just pull back and maintain plausible deniability.
But what is more likely is that by the time Europe can come up with any decisions the Baltics would be occupied and I doubt EU would be mobilizing to free them. Its just sanctions and life goes on.
Oh, they have big appetites. The plan was to seize the entire south Ukraine and Transsinistria, and force their december 2021 ultimatum to be implemented. The problem is Putin's ego wrote checks Russian armed forces cant cash.
Well, sure. I was talking about appetite to attack and annex NATO member countries. What concerns Ukraine, I agree with you.
In fact I believe, although this is controversial, that Putin was expecting to seize Kiev and install a puppet government. Or at least half-expected to, on the off chance there was not much resistance, like in Georgia in 2008. Some commentators say that cannot be because the forces employed were not nearly adequate for such a task, and they might be right, but my guess is that Putin thought there was a decent chance there wouldn't be resistance, in which cases, the forces would have been enough.
First, its all political fiction as Russia is unable to fight two big wars simultaneously in a time frame we are discussing (US elections chaos). Russia does not even have reserves to exploit local breakthroughs in Pokrovsk not mentioning pushing out ZSU from Kursk. Actually I doubt that Russia would be able to attack anyone else as long as Ukraine is not defeated and subjugated politically, but for the sake of argument lets say they have hidden 5th Golf Cart Army under general Steinerov command somewhere in Kaliningrad.
"which the Russians could close in an hour."
Suwalki Gap is 90 kilometers in its narrowest part. Current Russian pace in their most successful Pokrovsk offensive is kilometer per day so It would take three months to close the gap.
"The only good news is that there isn't any good reason for the Russians to attack the Baltics, unless there is ALREADY a full scale conventional war with NATO"
Scenario of attack on the Baltics is based on assumption that Russians may try to test NATO resolve by attacking its weakest member. If there is chaos in USA or Trump pulls out USA from NATO Russians may think that other allies will not engage in a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom they know nothing. In such case NATO as an alliance will de facto cease to exist and Russia will be able to dominate its individual members in the "near abroad", without waging full scale war.
Actually one should notice that since 1945 Russia does not fight wars, it launches special military operations (eg. operation Danube or Storm 333). Attack on the Baltics in this scenario would be yet another such operation.
Good post. I agree with everything, except the bit about the Suwalki Gap. Donbas is heavily defended by fortifications which have been built since 2014. One reason why the expected fall of Pokrovsk will be such a disaster is that there isn't much of anything in the way of fortifications any more between there to the Dnieper. The Suwalki Gap is not fortified, and if the Russians attacked unexpectedly, before Poland or whatever large NATO country could get forces arrayed in there, they would close it pretty fast. "An hour" is probably an exaggeration, but it would not take long, and that is what American military planners assume; I'm not making this up.
But again, I don't think that at the moment there's a snowball's chance in hell of the Russians doing that. I completely agree with you that EVEN if there were appetite for a war with NATO (and there is not; see the linked article), the Russians do not possess the forces to dare such an adventure. It is very expensive to maintain mass combat power and the Russians have been very carefully balancing the size of their forces against their budgets, to make the war as sustainable as possible. They have barely enough to gradually overwhelm Ukraine and simply don't have extra forces adequate for any kind of additional major military operation, much less a war with NATO.
"The Suwalki Gap is not fortified, and if the Russians attacked unexpectedly"
"If" does a lot of heavy lifting here. I understand that military planners work on assumption of worst case scenario, Yom Kippur happened an so on but I dont see how 24/7 NATO SIGINT and AWACS surveillance could miss force concentration required to close 90 kilometer gap. In case of 2022 invasion everything including routes of attack was predicted months before.
Last but not least if the goal is to test NATO resolve with plausible deniability than attacking its bigger Eastern Flank country doesnt make sense. Poland will have to respond if there is direct incursion, so the war with the strongest NATO force in the area will be certain. In such case its better to go straight after Warsaw instead of playing stupid games.
I generally agree here, especially the last paragraph. Net, net -- it is extremely unlikely for anything to happen in the Baltics unless there is a general war between NATO and Russia.
I agree and have read the comments…question I ask now is what if Ukraine actually used weapons to attack positions further without US? Would they be kicked out of future NATO discussions?
My own reaction is "yes". Discussions about semantics in a life or death situation are an irrelevant luxury. PAKISTAN has a NW capability. What's more it empowered North Korea in attaining the same status! Despite which it's regarded as a Western ally. Preposterous. As for corruption, Ukraine has some way to go before it attains the same level as Pakistan which is a nuclear armed, profoundly corrupt, fantastically incompetent basket case. History will condemn Western democracies for the way Ukraine has been treated.
Don't forget that Pakistan is a nominal U.S. (not Western) ally only to counterbalance (or undermine) India, which was not even allied with, but merely friendly with the Soviet Union. That's how U.S. geopolitics work - we pay lip service to democracy, but in fact other countries get our support based on their hostility to our "rivals". That's why we supported the Contras, Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan in the 80's, all manner of violent right wing dictatorships in Latin America, Diem in Vietnam, all kinds of dictators. This is highly relevant to the background of the Ukraine War.
Apart from everything else, I see one huge practical problem. Where would Ukraine test their first device? It's a big country but is not empty enough like the USA, Russia, India, China, or Pakistan. It doesn't have an ally like apartheid South Africa to do it for them as happened with Israel. Or like Australia for the UK. Nor does it have some handy South Pacific paradise island to blow up like the French. And would they be likely to go down the route of the DPRK, who don't give damn about who they irradiate?
Today that is true, but only if you have the expertise to do so. Ukraine has zero experience building nuclear devices. And forty-five years ago it was not true for Israel or South Africa either. In its aftermath a lot was written about the Vega Incident in the South Atlantic, but all stories fade with time. There's no reason why you should know about it. Go look it up. It's fascinating. It was finally confirmed only in 2016.
Well... that link doesn't really say Israel tested it. It says a host of nations could have been responsible. But, I would definitely say that the likelihood is Israel. Based on where it was in its program. But that's a guess.
This makes my broader point. The opportunity is there for Ukraine.
Sure, the world would be against it. But "the world" has failed to stop a genocide. So it has no moral authority over Ukraine. So, my read is, there would be lots of public condemnation and a lot of back room help.
And then there is the fact that is DPRK can build a bomb under sanctions... so can Ukraine.
Cant but agree on this analysis. Having said that I think Ukraine and EU needs to have a similar agreement in place in addition. Sorry to say I dont really trust the Americans. But yes, lets try to build alliances instead of bombs. But if not, the argument presented here makes sense for all small countries. And we might end up with bombs.
A small historical footnote on Israeli development of the Bomb. Israel was supported by many countries in this, among them my own Norway. We delivered the deuterium. Secretly of course, but not so secretly really. This was back when Norway and Israel had a good relationship.
Interesting, I'm sure there are a lot of people int he EU who would want to help Ukraine in this program. And an equal number who either have a cant do mindset or wouldnt want to help.
Few people in the EU would want to see a nuclear war between Ukraine and Russia. The diabolical logic of nuclear weapons means you want to have them yourself (in Ukraine's case, desperately), but you don't want anyone else, even your allies, to acquire them. Because the greater variety of countries and regimes which have them, the greater risk of nuclear war. That's why the "nuclear club" does everything possible to stop "proliferation".
Western lethargy, intransigence and refusal to support conventional arms deliveries to Ukraine are the only guarantors of an eventual nuclear war. It just doesnt work out that Russia will continue bombing Ukraine while Ukraine refuses to rearm with nukes. The best thing about nuclear weapons is that once you have them you dont really need to use them. I dont think Ukraine would want to use them on Russia if and when it gets them. But as things stand today, I and a lot of people dont see how Russia can continue misbehaving in Ukraine without it eventually turning into a conventional war between two nuclear armed states.
Lethargy and intransigence or not, the West is UNABLE to supply conventional arms to Ukraine in volumes which keep up with Russia, without a massive increase of expenditure requiring tax increases and militarization of our economies. We don't do this because it's not politically feasible; in fact continuing support for Ukraine even at the present drip-feed level is looking to be politically unfeasible. Look what Germany just did.
I agree that the risks of nuclear conflict increase, but they increase in any case as we fight an ongoing big war with a nuclear power. And I agree with you that Ukraine producing a Bomb is one of the very plausible risk factors. If I were Ukraine, it's what I would do.
Yeah again, the issue is with us. Increasing expenditure on manufacturing defence goods can be done efficiently without raising taxes too much. The issue is our defence industries are not getting large enough orders. Even here in the US, we do not produce enough artillery shells, not enough GMLRS, not enough ground based AD. We should be producing at least 1 patriot battery a month. But we're spending a lot of money and we need to look into reallocating those funds and restructuring everything. Some companies like Anduril are trying to disrupt the industry in a positive way and are looking to manufacture large scale relatively lower cost items as well which is smart. So either we move to realign our industries or eventually its going to be a conventional war between two nuclear armed states. I honestly think we're past that point anyway.
But "realigning our industries" would require significantly raising taxes (or cutting spending somewhere), because someone has to pay for the steady stream of orders required for it to make sense to anyone to invest in the additional capacity.
The whole problem is that Global Hegemony is expensive even without the capacity to fight a large war. So our military is built to fight small colonial wars on the cheap, and our MIC is built to supply that kind of military. It is not built to supply anyone, whether it's the U.S. Army or the ZSU, fighting a big war of attrition like we have in Ukraine, and to restructure it would be immensely expensive.
We are massively in debt and run large budget deficits, and have immense social problems which are all screaming for money to solve them. We are very much like the late Roman Empire in this, and there is just no way in hell we're going to start spending trillions we don't have to do that, in order to fight big wars far away somewhere. We are not going to "realign" ourselves to become Sparta, not in one lifetime or not perhaps ever. That is of course why guys like Lindsay Grahama think the Ukraine War is such a good deal -- they think it's damaging our rival on the cheap, at a price we can afford, based on Ukraine shedding blood for our hegemony, and never mind that Ukraine will lose in the end.
I can see a case where Ukraine gives up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for NATO membership but I cant see a case where Ukraine joins NATO without nukes because Russia will always try to create a conflict thus giving Western politicians an excuse to reject Ukraine's NATO goals. Ukraine should focus on joining EU and explicitly stating it wont produce nukes(while working on them hardcore). This is the only strategic deterrent that makes sense. No amount of Western conventional aid is going to help Ukraine. But if France can provide some weapons grade plutonium from their breeder reactors then that would be an excellent form of aid.
Providing Ukraine (or any other non-nuke nation) with weapons grade "anything" is highly problematic . . . dangerous! The big-nations' Nuclear Club does not like to add to its membership even though "upstarts" have gained some nuclear weapons potential capability over the decades. As an example of the U.S.'s fear of nuclear proliferation, there are federal laws to prevent recycle of spent nuclear fuel (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) for newer fuel, weapons grade or commercial. Of course, I am not saying that past surreptious activities in this regard have not been pursued by the United States.
I see, well there's a start for everything, I dont have high hopes for our government in the US but possibly a European effort. France seems to be fairly independent from the US when it comes to decision making.
As James Coffey correctly said, the "nuclear club" does not welcome new members at all, not even among their supposed allies. No one, I mean NO ONE, wants to see a nuclear war between Ukraine and Russia, certainly not France, and we can be sure that there will be no official help to Ukraine from any NATO country in acquiring nuclear weapons. If the choice is between complete subjugation and/or destruction of Ukraine, and nuclear war, no one in NATO will hesitate even one second to give up Ukraine. Not to say there might not be some rogue actors helping, but NATO countries will go to great lengths to prevent Ukraine from become a nuclear power. We NATO countries are very, very stupid sometimes, but we're not completely crazy.
But Ukraine's perspective is totally different. Of course it is in their interests to do everything possible to acquire nuclear weapons. This is just one of many conflicts of interest between Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine would also very much like to draw us into the war as direct participants.
Well you may be very right, but the view of countries very close to Russia or those that historically had issues with Russia with may also act in their own interest. Finland, Poland, the Baltics, could help in some way, maybe not directly but in a way that is material. And its not like Ukraine on its own over the long term cannot achieve this through its own means.
As a Ukrainian who actually read that memorandum. Unless my memory plays tricks on me, there is no obligation to protect Ukraine from invasion.
Did you try to read between the lines?
There is no such thing as between the lines. This isn't a philosophy essay. It either stipulates this explicitly or not. In this case, it does not. It would be prudent for people to finally learn what contracts are.
Chill mate
I’m just trying to keep it in the sarcastic mood of the blog
Apologies.
No worries🫂
I feel a sarcasm in Serhii's comment
At that level these are not really contracts either. At most, declarations of intent.
And as such, it was indeed about providing some kind of joint assurance for the independence of Ukraine with some hint of promise of assistance in need: in context it is in exchange for Ukraine not becoming a nuclear-capable military power.
Even the stricter agreements only go so far, often only as far as they are seriously tested.
Of all the parties to the memorandum, do you feel like anyone other than Ukraine lived up to the agreement? The US reaction in 2014? Really?
Nope. I feel like this is a stillborn treaty, no one had any real obligations except Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal. Maybe it was designed that way intentionally, to exchange nukes for nothing, similarly to them fooling indigenous people to exchange gold for beads. That's how I feel.
In den Zeiten der Atommächte, verzichtet ein Land auf die einzig wichtige Sache, die eine unabhängige und sichere Existenz auf diesem Planeten ermöglicht.
Nun ja, Schnee drüber. Fehler sind Menschlich. Nicht wahr?
Dummheit wird zwar bestrafft. Aber leider nicht die Politik, die diese Dummheit verursacht hat. Leider nur die Menschen die in dieser Politik leben.
Die Ukraine sollte schon heute mit dem Bau beginnen. Die Vorrausetzungen sind doch da und der Vertrag ist doch "Geschichte". Und da es "Made in Ukraine" wird, muss nicht geachtet werden, wie tief das in Russland fliegen darf. *grins
In fact article 5 also doesn't specify that countries must use armed force. It just says they will assist with what action they deem necessary. Although this can include armed force. Article 5 has been invoked 1 time ( by US ) and all parties did not provide armed force. So no guarantees with nato admission anyway.
"will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
But it specify the goal "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area", if it`s required you have to send troops.
The Treaty doesn't say that. Every NATO member gets to decide for itself what response, if any, to provide. Article V is not an actual security guaranty, and if Ukraine were to be admitted to NATO, there is no guaranty that any NATO country would respond militarily to a future Russian attack.
Of course, NATO credibility would be on the line, so, maybe, there would be a response. But it's hard to say -- no one really wants to fight WWIII against a nuclear armed opponent, which I think should be understandable to everyone.
WW3 is the wrong name for that would-be war - just because there is nobody on the Russian side. No "world" in the war, just a local conflict.
Iran, NK, China (support). Quality of this union is not the best, but also UA-West union is also sometimes not of the best quality
They will not risk self-destruction for the sake of Russia. Maybe NK - but Russia+NK is far from being a half of the world, to make that a world war.
That’s true, neither Iran nor China or NK will risk. Same is valid for Nato countries as well
Strange war, it’s obvious that nobody is able to achieve goals and Ru should have offered peace negotiations and get the fck away from UA, like China retrieted from Vietnam
NATO is created to fight nuclear superpower. Attack on NATO country is considered attack on each country and if the goal is not reached, that will mean the fail of implementing article 5.
I mean, the US invoked article 5 after 9/11. I’d say it is somewhat debatable whether all NATO countries not rushing to attack Afghanistan is a testament to Article 5 not providing a guarantee.
If they are hesitatant to join the world's superpower at the height of its strength in a far away conflict against a tiny opponent, think how much less reluctant they will be to battle a large nuclear armed opponent right on their doorstep.
I'm reminded of several famous quotes on treaties.
-----------------------------------------
"Treaties are observed as long as they are in harmony with interests.” — Napoleon
"Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last." - Charles de Gaulle
"All treaties between great states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle for existence." - Otto von Bismarck.
There was no rational plan that could have made the Afghanistan war worthwhile. All Al-Qaeda leaders and soldiers were replaceable, and the U.S. couldn't commit genocide against the entire population to eliminate the fanatics. Yet, many countries still contributed troops on the ground. This war ended up as most Europeans expected: a significant loss of resources and time.
Personally I would not risk my life and that of my country on some 70 year old untested statement of intent written on a piece of paper.
What mechanism do you have to make countries intervene with military force if they decide not to? Fact is there isn't any.
I for one would not count on article 5 saving me.
That kind of thinking led to the rise of Nazi Germany. Why would the French and English sacrifice their lives for the Poles? Both nations paid dearly for their lack of rational foresight.
I think the reason not to send troops to Afghanistan wasnt build on fear, but more along the Lines that «we dont think this is the correct response, we dont see the need for this war etc.
I know USA invoked article 5, but I am unsure whether they did that for the attack on Afghanistan.
I know, I know. It was “war on terror” ;)
It is a well-known fact that all countries sign treaties and protocols, which they then proceed to disregard.
And each time they do there are consequences of varying degrees. Obama's failure to live up to US obligations in 2014 has resulted in nearly a million casualties and likely a trillion dollars wasted.
Exactly, non of these should happen. What Ukraine did to the nukes is what Gandhi did to the civil resistance. It was the first precedent of denuclearisation in the history! And it’s sad to see the world, particularly the nations on the treaty, couldn’t take it as ultimate good for the world.
Idk what are the reasons that the US currently doesn’t allow strike into Russia, whether it’s the end of the Biden presidency and they don’t want to make any strategic decisions for the next administration or it’s mere stupidity, but the more it’s going like that the more it stinks poo-poo
It's important to keep in mind that the newly formed Ukrainian government did not possess any means to operate the Soviet nuclear weapons left in Ukrainian territory, no codes, none of the infrastructure. So saying they "gave up their nukes" is a real stretch. Those were Soviet, not Ukrainian nukes.
Whether Ukraine can quickly develop its own nukes or not I don't know -- they have nuclear material but they don't have enrichment facilities or other infrastructure, but Tom's [edit: Cook's] thesis is plausible to me, and frightening. Even more frightening because it's hard to see why the Ukrainians wouldn't go that way, if they could. I would, if I were Ukraine. That's the infernal logic of nuclear weapons at work, which may end us.
Only thing which gave me pause was the statement that Ukraine's MIC will be second only to the U.S. and China's -- really? Ukraine's MIC will exceed Russia's? Have a look at some stats to see the magnitude of change which would be required to get to that, I would suggest, before writing such stuff.
Military production, production of all the materiel required to sustain large-scale warfare, requires industrial and financial capacity, and to translate it into combat power you have to apply PPP. It is doubtful that the U.S., deeply indebted and considerably deindustrialized, and extremely expensive, matches China in this, and lags Russia in some important areas, like munitions. Ukraine is in a different league altogether, and with population now below 30 million and economy in ruins, is unlikely ever to get into this league, at least in our lifetimes.
Erm... just a note: this is an article by Benjamin Cook.
I'll openly admit a 'topic of this kind' is kind of 'unpleasant' for me. I have a 'strong predilection for avoiding discussing nuclear weapons'.
Also, I do not agree with all the details in this feature. For example, have added 'USA and 'French' to the nations that helped Israel develop its nukes - because there is more than enough evidence that they did - officially, unofficially, privately or whichever other way you want to name it (happen to have done a lots of 'homework' to this topic, just a few years ago: https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/1973-the-first-nuclear-war-crucial-air-battles-of-the-october-1973-arab-israeli-war.php).
THAT, however, is NOT the point - nor do I find it a reason not to publish this.
What does matter (to me) is that Benjamin's conclusions about the whys and hows are 'right on the mark': it's precisely 'the actions of other nuclear powers' that have limited the number of Ukrainian options to only two.
Well, sure, and I agree with all of that. I agreed with the main point of the article from the beginning, the other stuff was just a quibble.
We drift into dangerous territory, we drift, it seems to me, in the same direction as we did in the 1890's and 1900's, mindlessly towards global catastrophe. "Sleepwalking" in Chris Clark's phrase. Yes, we didn't leave the Ukrainians any other choice, and it's hard to see how it ends well for any of us.
The final idea you get from the world experience is that you need to go full nuclear to rrealistically be a sovereign Nation.
The lesson of this first two decades is that if you have the nukes, then You can shape your own reality. And it's not only NK and Iran, look what happens when you not got them: Irak, Libia, Germany.
We are going to live in a much more dangerous world.
I recall making the same point and a Ukrainian pointed out that while Russia controlled most of the codes Ukraine did have some capacity to use nukes.
Everything I have read states that Ukraine had zero codes and no possibility of using any of the 1,700-odd warheads left on its territory. If this is wrong, I would be glad to be educated. Sources?
That's not to say that they could not have been hacked. The codes only control the detonation mechanism, which surely could be rewired. Most nuclear weapons work by detonation of small conventional explosive lenses to implode a hollow sphere of fissionable material, or to push hemispheres or wedges of fissionable material together to reach critical mass (even fusion, i.e. thermonuclear bombs work similar to this, as the fusion reaction is set off by a small fission primary charge). Once the device is built (right shape and configuration of the right material), it wouldn't be rocket science to set it off.
I am sorry I don't remember where I got this from. It may have referred to tactical nukes.
" The codes only control the detonation mechanism, which surely could be rewired"
Indeed, load it into a truck and find a volunteer to drive it somewhere suitable and then touch the wires together or push the button or whaever
There is another highly cynical use of Ukraine's Soviet nuclear weapons in lieu of surrendering them for worthless promises: nuclear blackmail. A nasty and highly immoral foreign policy to be sure, but would Russia want one or more of a former Soviet nuclear weapon to end up in the hands of an anti-Russian terrorist source? Same comment but with respect to the West. Basically, Ukraine would not need the ability to "light one off" to make possession of nuclear weapons nonetheless useful. Again, sorry for the cynical observation, but I perceive that the blackmail option could have been one viable foreign policy option for Ukraine. The international system is not an environment for idealism, especially not in this day an age.
No, I am not advocating for this option, but at least it should have been placed on the table for discussion.
That's really just a variation on the "threat" use of nuclear weapons - something all nuclear armed nations do routinely, if not daily.
I just wanted to close the loop on the possible roles that Soviet nukes in Ukraine could play. I presume you are suggesting that the Ukrainian nuclear threat would not have deterred Putin.
When the weapon is physically located on the territory of the country I think it’s a stretch to say it doesn’t possess it. There was a context and the context was such that the West pressured Ukraine to give up the weapons and this is a fact. Yet the takes such as a lack of codes, infrastructure or that it was soviet not ua nukes are Russian propaganda narratives.
There are different points of view on this, and it is beyond any doubt that the West definitely pressured Ukraine to hand them over. But you degrade yourself and destroy your own credibility by referring to points of view you disagree with as "Russian propaganda narratives". Wise men may disagree about lots of things, including this. This aggressive passion for unanimity, this intolerance of disagreement, is a really Soviet quality, which Ukrainians need to get rid of if they want to join the West.
Thanks for the advice. Let me to put other way, less heated up. I think the take about code, infrastructure and ussr are more excuses to justify what happened back then. The process of military forces division among ex soviet republics was complex and you can’t take it down to these.
"Heated up" is ok, if it's intellectually honest. Would you like to say something like "the West fucked Ukraine"? If that's what you're saying, then I totally agree. The West fucked Ukraine then and is fucking Ukraine now. I will be surprised if you hate us less than the Russians, when this is all over. For what little it may be worth, I apologize.
The West helped, helps and will continue to help one way or another. The West is diverse. And there is no implication that some of the key players aren’t prone to err. It’s quite opposite, we all do.
Let me remind you what was happening before 2022, with widespread blindness about Ukraine’s agency. That was corrected. And that is the biggest difference between Ukrainian relationships with the western countries and Russia, when the former are partners the later is the enemy, and the nature of these relationships have little in common and opposite dynamics over time.
Therefore, based on what you say, do not expect that Ukraines will hate you cause you’re westerner. They will hate you if your Russian sympathiser, what I assume you’re not, aren’t you?
Ukraine couldn't have used the weapons anyway. Russia had the launch codes, so it was a no-brainer.
Well, how about a yes-brainer: if you have a thousand working nuclear weapons on hand but no password, how hard is it to make them work as compared to having nothing? Do you throw away the car once the ash tray is full?
I think the truth is somewhere in between here. Surely the Ukrainians could have hacked the detonator devices. But remember this was at the height of the era of peace and good feelings, we were all friends then, and Ukraine has huge economic problems to think about and concentrate on. Nobody imagined in their wildest dreams that 30-odd years later, Russia would be invading Ukraine. Ukraine was hoping for a lot of help from the West -- as Russia did too in those days! And so did what was asked of them. With tragic results, I guess.
If the argument is that Ukrainians didn't really want to keep and pay for maintaining the nukes they could not imagine a reason for using, then that is correct.
If the argument is that once you don't have the password then getting rid of them is the obvious course of action (as the comment I replied to claimed) then that is absurd.
Edit: as long as the passwords are secure it does not matter who has the nukes, right? What an insane take.
It is hardly "hacking" to pull out the electronics module, bin it, and fit a different switch. A lot easier than hot-wiring a modern car.
Lo de que "nadie se imaginaba que Rusia invada Ucrania algún día" me suena ridículo, desde siempre para los rusos sí Ucrania no es de ellos, no es de nadie.
Ya existían videojuegos con ése conflicto hipotético, Su-27 Flanker de 1995, escenario: Crimea.
It's almost not worth replying but I guess I will. Launch codes are encrypted keys. Ukraine did not possess them, Russia did. The weapons were useless without them. Ukraine could not 'hack' them. If you think you could simply run a password cracking algorithm to break in then can I suggest you take up a career as a Hollywood screenwriter because they don't live in the real world either.
Yeah, you should not have replied.
At the end of the control device are two wires which send a bit of DC power to the explosive lenses which trigger the nuclear explosion. I don't think it would be rocket science to hot wire that. You would just need to produce your own control unit and connect it to those two wires, substituting for the Soviet one. Not such a big job if you know how to take the warhead apart, and Ukraine had plenty of engineers left over from the old Soviet nuclear weapons programs.
"Only thing which gave me pause was the statement that Ukraine's MIC will be second only to the U.S. and China"
I though the same, but then read the link helpfully provided.
Which link? The only one I saw was to Wikipedia, and that article said nothing of the kind. Anyway I know a bit about Ukraine's MIC myself. It's dwarfed by Russia's, and Ukraine doesn't have the resources to build it up to the scale of the MICs of any of the superpowers. This has to be considered when designing a security architecture for Europe which will prevent this from happening again. Ukraine is not going to be safe without some kind of stable, mutually beneficial deal between NATO and Russia where the two sides don't threaten each other. That's extremely unpalatable, but that's just reality. It's going to require, probably, UN peacekeepers in a DMZ for the first period after the war. There's just no other way to do this not involving nuclear holocaust, or the full destruction and occupation of Ukraine.
My bad. I missed of the bit about having to dig deeper. This is what I found:
But Ukraine’s military engineers have already shown surprising skill in jury-rigging older weapons systems with more modern firepower. And over the last year alone, Ukraine’s defense companies have built three times as many armored vehicles as they were making before the war and have quadrupled production of anti-tank missiles, according to Ukrainian government documents reviewed by The New York Times.
"Funding for research and development is forecast to increase by eight times this year — to $1.3 billion from $162 million — according to an analysis of Ukraine’s military budget through 2030 by Janes, a defense intelligence firm. Military procurement jumped to a projected 20-year high of nearly $10 billion in 2023, compared with a prewar figure of about $1 billion a year."
(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/us/politics/ukraines-war-weapons-industry-russia.html)
It's chalk and cheese to compare arms sales with military production which what I think might have happened here. It must be very tempting to do so because while they are at war Ukraine is not selling anything abroad, but arms sales are only ever a fragment of a MIC not its entirity.
Btw, I agree completely with you about the options Ukraine faces.
Perceived necessity is the #1 growth agent for any MIC. Next is money. Ukraine is the test bed for western MIC, making it also Ukrainian MIC. #2 is money.
When counting US MIC do you include BAE? A British company operating in the US? I think you do. It's about production capacity. Not the location of your headquarters.
The money for Ukrainian MIC will not be hard to find.
Ukraine had gained positive control of tactical nukes(they could use them) and negative control(could prevent Russia from launching strategic nukes from Ukraine) of strategic nukes and was in the process of getting positive control for the strategic nukes according to NPR reports. They only stopped the process of converting strategic nukes to fully Ukrainian delivery and control systems due to the Budapest memorandum.
sadly, that's never going to happen. as much as I wished it to be possible, there are too many technical, finalization and political obstacles. (I'm a nuclear engineer, btw) in addition, it was not the case a fews decades ago, but Iran in 2024 is way more advance in science and technology then Ukraine these days.
Indeed: Iran has everything - all the 'parts' - necessary to make multiple nukes. But, also a '(nuclear) fatwa' not to have any in _assembled_ condition. Is a bit of predicament, and there's a similar element of ambiguity like in the case of Israel - at least until here's a situation that might make the reasoning obvious.
Oh, yes. How hard it is to hear now. At the starting positions in the 90s, we had nuclear status and space status, and now we are more backward than religious fanatics, and our economy is generally in some kind of ass. I am so ashamed right now that I will burn from this shame right now. It's all thanks to this oligarchy, which seems like bugs have invaded Ukraine and are sucking all the juices out of it. With such a marauding elite, we have no chances and prospects in the future. When people become disillusioned with the system, it is the worst thing that can happen, it is the eternal scenario of all wars, revolutions and riots. For example, if we take Ukraine and Poland and their initial starting positions in the 90s, now it is clear who has risen from the bottom and achieved success, and who is in complete ass. This speaks volumes about the quality of the elites and their ambitions. We have no chance with these idiots, with this neo-feudal oligarchic system, who appropriated all the merits of ordinary Ukrainians and now call themselves iron leaders.
well, it's not only oligarchy. It's deeper than that: serfdom of the 19th century and oppression and terror of the 20th (all brought from moscow), changed our priorities and panning horizons.
Oligarchy is not responsible for the fact that our children don't want to study (look at PISA by OECD)
«Oligarchy is not responsible for the fact that our children don't want to study» – Complete delusion. This criminal plutocracy, on the contrary, does everything possible to ensure that the population is as uneducated as possible, as stupid as possible and does not get involved in their corruption cases. They are extremely interested in this. They will always make sure that there are many more non-thinkers than people who think and are interested. Yes, this is also superimposed on the slavish mentality that remained in the majority from the Soviet Union. This is the Asian model of state management where it is necessary to unquestioningly obey the higher ranks.
Nope. "the oligarchy" actually needs people to work for them. Akhmetov (who is a criminal) even started Metinvest Polytechnic, which seems to be a decent university.
So, no, it's our fault that our kids are not studying hard enough.
Your logic is interesting. That is, according to your logic, for example, the maniac Putin or the murderer Kadyrov founded some institute with the money stolen from you, so now you need to serve them, because they threw you a bone from their table?
What do you think of this old news about Akhmetov's dark affairs?
I quote: “The National Commission, which carries out state regulation in the fields of energy and utilities, ignored the decision of the National Security and Defense Council, and compensated Akhmetov UAH 714 million for the supply of electricity to the temporarily occupied territories of Donbass.” That is, Ukrainians have been constantly raising tariffs since 2014 in order to pay for good living conditions for the occupiers and murderers, and Akhmetov from Poroshenko received the money for this. Some part of this money also went to the Kremlin through Andrii Kobolev, who was once awarded an order by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Probably for robbing Ukrainians. Example two: “Money was withdrawn from Yanukovych Jr.’s bank through Poroshenko’s bank. We are talking about approximately 2 billion hryvnia registered in the names of dummies. During 2016-2017, about 2 billion hryvnia were withdrawn from Alexander Yanukovych’s bank “VBR”, which were registered under the names of dummies.”
LigaNet: “Problems arose with the former adviser to the fifth president, Yuri Biryukov. In the summer, his place was searched in connection with possible abuses during the purchase of body armor, uniform sets and tents. According to the State Bureau of Investigation, bulletproof vests are shot through, and tents and clothing are allegedly of poor quality. These actions, the investigation believes, could have caused about UAH 100 million in losses to the state. Recently, the SBI reported suspicions to Biryukov’s friend, General Dmitry Marchenko, in this case. He is suspected of inaction by the military authorities during the period of mobilization. He holds the position of head of the Main Directorate for Development and Support of Material Support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to investigators, Marchenko, while occupying this position, knew that the quality of body armor was poor - and still authorized their purchase. The former head of the National Commission that carries out state regulation in the fields of energy and utilities, appointed by Poroshenko, Dmitry Vovk, who was a manager of the Roshen company, is hiding from NABU abroad. He is suspected of involvement in causing UAH 18.8 billion in losses from the introduction of the so-called Rotterdam+ formula. The profit from this formula was received by Rinat Akhmetov’s DTEK group of companies.»
see my previous comment: Akhmetov is a criminal and should be imprisoned. he (and many other oligarchs) are responsible for many problems in Ukraine (but the collapse of science and education is not one of them)
Thank you so very much. --- It is curious that international law is just some rambling rules which nobody respects and which every one can use to its advantage. Mongolia signs up and ratifies some treaty and does not deliver. The Convention on genocide entered into force in 1951 and has 153 state parties as of June 2024. Member states are prohibited from engaging in genocide and obligated to pursue the enforcement of this prohibition. All perpetrators are to be tried regardless of whether they are private individuals, public officials, or political leaders with sovereign immunity. But Russia can lead its war of genocide against Ukraine without obstacles. The ICRC voted the RRC and Pawel Savchuk on its global board just four months after Russia started its war of destruction with genocidal intention against Ukraine. Even Guterres declared that the Un and the security council is dead. But nobody does anything. Sorry, I am also rambling. Of despair.
I agree with you but I am currently having a bit of trouble with the moral lessons given to Mongolia in the media. Who will defend it if it enforces this arrest warrant? The USA? Europe? China... ?Will there be new sanctions against Russia? 3,485 km of borders with Russia, a population in 2022 of 3.398 million inhabitants, an economy and trade that depend enormously on Russia. Putler is playing on velvet. There are international conventions, treaties, that gives a good conscience but only the balance of power counts in the end.
Start with the fact that they invited the bitch. They would not need defending if they didn't actively wipe their ass with the treaty they signed.
The geographical status of Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia is mirrored by the country's economic dependency on both nations. Hence the delicate balancing act needed to hold off a reckoning by either should Mongolia be so bold or foolhardy to offend its neighbours. The days of the Golden Horde are long gone.
An explanation of that sort can be conjured for literally anything. A more honest description is that they invited him because they got paid off.
'Literally anything'? A banana milkshake? You flatter yourself if you think your view is somehow 'honest', unless you have convincing insider knowledge. Do try less vulgarity in future, it really grates.
Point taken on the vulgarity. But yes, an explanation of that kind is always possible. For example: a thief really needed the money. It doesn't matter any more than "we trade a lot" as a reason to actively sabotage rule of law.
They shouldn't allow Putin's visit and your questions are answered. Since they invited him, Mongolia assumed the responsibility of breaking the Convention. I have the same feeling, that international organizations and conventions are purely optional nowadays. We have a huge number of examples. There's no gentlemen's agreement anymore. Diplomacy has set. The Middle Age is coming back.
Sad, terrifying - and true ...
On the other hand I would very much like to see Russia kicked out of their position of nuclear and scientific/engineering supplier.
Thanks!
I guess Ukraine can easily assemble a/the bomb. But when is it supposed to use it? When the orcs are at the gates of Kyiv or just crossing Dnipro again? What will be the retaliation if they use it first?
Or are they supposed to use only in a response to a nuke attack? What about if it is tactical nuke…
Anyway, I don’t think it will be a game changer. Then, to be really effective as a “restraint” (to whom and what kind of attack are separate questions) Ukraine should announce it loudly and proudly but this will trigger sanctions from the Club, and probably end of the conventional aid.
As for Article 5, I think it is already dead. Just don’t see Biden, Harris or Trump acting on it unless the States is attacked.
now it changes as well as nothing to UA. but when the war will be set on pause (2025-2026), this will help to prevent second attack on UA in 2028-29 (maybe)
We don't attack Russia because we presume they would nuke us. The same would be true for Ukraine, if Ukraine had nukes. I hate to say it, as a proponent of nuclear disarmament, but having nuclear weapons is the ultimate deterrent against invasion. Because everyone presumes that a state with nuclear weapons would indeed use them, even at the risk of starting a nuclear holocaust, if their very existence is threatened. Again, I hate to say it, but if Ukraine managed to developed nuclear weapons, I doubt any of the Western backers would blame them, considering everything which has happened, and there would be no interruption of aid. If I were Zelensky, I would be on that yesterday. But as an American -- I hope it doesn't happen.
People should stop waffling about NATO. This will only work when USA works.
Lets say the election paralyzes the US and Russia invades Baltic states, do you really think that EU without USA would go to war over Narva?
The ONLY guarantee are nukes, because in this way the security of a country depends on the country and not some coalition that sooner or later (has history has shown) breaks down.
If Russia attacks Baltics, EU core will have to go for a war or EU will cease to exist. Even if Germany will be hesitant, Finland, Poland and Sweden will respond militarily, and France (see their current presence in the Baltics and Romania) will join. ESPECIALLY if USA is out and Germany is hesitant. There are no vacuums in geopolitics.
People (including Pudding) tend to underestimate ruthlessness of EU when it comes to its vital interests and the speed of geopolitical changes in such moments. When Putin goes after Eurozone it becomes the zero sum game for core EU.
Before the full scale invasion I had a discussion on Twitter with one well known expert about Finland and Sweden joining NATO in case Putin attacks Ukraine. I was claiming they will join, he was skeptical, quoted opinion polls from Sweden and Finland showing that public opinion in these countries was not in favor of joining NATO. Where are they now?
Let's hope we don't find out!!
But what would EU do, exactly? EU doesn't even have an army. The Baltics are not defensible by conventional means -- the only land route is through the Suwalki Gap, which the Russians could close in an hour. Letting the Russians have the Baltics would be suicide for NATO's credibility, but what, practically, would we do?
The only good news is that there isn't any good reason for the Russians to attack the Baltics, unless there is ALREADY a full scale conventional war with NATO, and they fear blockade of the Gulf of Finland -- which was how the Winter War started. But if we get to that point, then the Baltics will be the very least of our problems. God forbid.
Poland takes back Kaliningrad => no need for Suwalki Gap.
Takes BACK Kaliningrad? I think there is some confusion about the history here. Kaliningrad oblast' is the Northern half of East Prussia (as I'm sure you know). Königsberg was founded in the 13th C by the Teutonic Knights, who had conquered the area from the Old Prussians, who had lived there for a thousand years before that. Was even the capital of all of Prussia until 1701. If anyone could "take back" Kaliningrad, it would be the Germans. The treaty which divided East Prussia between Poland and the USSR was signed by the U.S., U.K. and USSR. But I guess you're joking, or trolling.
I don't think the Germans will want to enter the fight.
Anyway, Kaliningrad is vulnerable, and capturing it removes the trouble with the "corridor".
That's why there are German troops stationed in the Baltic states, and there's a project to locate a whole brigade in Estonia, if my memory serves me correctly. So, Germany won't be able to avoid the fight, if it happens
It was a fief of the Kingdom of Poland for some time between late XVth century up to a half of XVIIth century.
On a serious note Poland doesnt need this sh**hole but taking it with 16th mechanised division looks like easy solution to Suwalki gap problem.
Not quite. In case of any perceived weakness (like internal turmoil in USA due to election) Russia will be using Baltics to dismantle NATO. There are two avenues Daugavpils region in Latvia but more likely the city of Narva in Estonia - 95% Russian speaking city that has a powerplant that supplies a large part of Estonia.
The city could be taken by their forces within hours and after that they can apply the usual peoples republic scenario and just overrun the country or part of it quite quickly. From Russian perspective the cost for this operation would be ridiculously small. As if Europe indeed would declare war on Russia (which no one believes either in the east nor west) then Russia can just pull back and maintain plausible deniability.
But what is more likely is that by the time Europe can come up with any decisions the Baltics would be occupied and I doubt EU would be mobilizing to free them. Its just sanctions and life goes on.
God forbid. We do know, I think, that Russia doesn't have the slightest appetite for such an adventure -- at the moment. See: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/27/russia-establishment-ukraine-war-end-ceasefire/?tpcc=world_brief. But of course as wars drag on, appetites may change. God forbid.
Oh, they have big appetites. The plan was to seize the entire south Ukraine and Transsinistria, and force their december 2021 ultimatum to be implemented. The problem is Putin's ego wrote checks Russian armed forces cant cash.
Well, sure. I was talking about appetite to attack and annex NATO member countries. What concerns Ukraine, I agree with you.
In fact I believe, although this is controversial, that Putin was expecting to seize Kiev and install a puppet government. Or at least half-expected to, on the off chance there was not much resistance, like in Georgia in 2008. Some commentators say that cannot be because the forces employed were not nearly adequate for such a task, and they might be right, but my guess is that Putin thought there was a decent chance there wouldn't be resistance, in which cases, the forces would have been enough.
First, its all political fiction as Russia is unable to fight two big wars simultaneously in a time frame we are discussing (US elections chaos). Russia does not even have reserves to exploit local breakthroughs in Pokrovsk not mentioning pushing out ZSU from Kursk. Actually I doubt that Russia would be able to attack anyone else as long as Ukraine is not defeated and subjugated politically, but for the sake of argument lets say they have hidden 5th Golf Cart Army under general Steinerov command somewhere in Kaliningrad.
"which the Russians could close in an hour."
Suwalki Gap is 90 kilometers in its narrowest part. Current Russian pace in their most successful Pokrovsk offensive is kilometer per day so It would take three months to close the gap.
"The only good news is that there isn't any good reason for the Russians to attack the Baltics, unless there is ALREADY a full scale conventional war with NATO"
Scenario of attack on the Baltics is based on assumption that Russians may try to test NATO resolve by attacking its weakest member. If there is chaos in USA or Trump pulls out USA from NATO Russians may think that other allies will not engage in a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom they know nothing. In such case NATO as an alliance will de facto cease to exist and Russia will be able to dominate its individual members in the "near abroad", without waging full scale war.
Actually one should notice that since 1945 Russia does not fight wars, it launches special military operations (eg. operation Danube or Storm 333). Attack on the Baltics in this scenario would be yet another such operation.
Good post. I agree with everything, except the bit about the Suwalki Gap. Donbas is heavily defended by fortifications which have been built since 2014. One reason why the expected fall of Pokrovsk will be such a disaster is that there isn't much of anything in the way of fortifications any more between there to the Dnieper. The Suwalki Gap is not fortified, and if the Russians attacked unexpectedly, before Poland or whatever large NATO country could get forces arrayed in there, they would close it pretty fast. "An hour" is probably an exaggeration, but it would not take long, and that is what American military planners assume; I'm not making this up.
But again, I don't think that at the moment there's a snowball's chance in hell of the Russians doing that. I completely agree with you that EVEN if there were appetite for a war with NATO (and there is not; see the linked article), the Russians do not possess the forces to dare such an adventure. It is very expensive to maintain mass combat power and the Russians have been very carefully balancing the size of their forces against their budgets, to make the war as sustainable as possible. They have barely enough to gradually overwhelm Ukraine and simply don't have extra forces adequate for any kind of additional major military operation, much less a war with NATO.
"The Suwalki Gap is not fortified, and if the Russians attacked unexpectedly"
"If" does a lot of heavy lifting here. I understand that military planners work on assumption of worst case scenario, Yom Kippur happened an so on but I dont see how 24/7 NATO SIGINT and AWACS surveillance could miss force concentration required to close 90 kilometer gap. In case of 2022 invasion everything including routes of attack was predicted months before.
Last but not least if the goal is to test NATO resolve with plausible deniability than attacking its bigger Eastern Flank country doesnt make sense. Poland will have to respond if there is direct incursion, so the war with the strongest NATO force in the area will be certain. In such case its better to go straight after Warsaw instead of playing stupid games.
I generally agree here, especially the last paragraph. Net, net -- it is extremely unlikely for anything to happen in the Baltics unless there is a general war between NATO and Russia.
That's why there are USA troops in the Baltic states - to serve as a tripwire.
USA cannot easily back off a conventional conflict if one of their brigades is entangled in the battle
That is for now, but in a few months when USA will be consumed by internal turmoil then those troops will be gone and Europe is left for their own.
I agree and have read the comments…question I ask now is what if Ukraine actually used weapons to attack positions further without US? Would they be kicked out of future NATO discussions?
The likely immediate outcome would be the decrease or cease of supply in several weapon types.
If you are talking about the Budapest memorandum, then, yes there is an obligation. It's pretty clear cut , IMO.
My own reaction is "yes". Discussions about semantics in a life or death situation are an irrelevant luxury. PAKISTAN has a NW capability. What's more it empowered North Korea in attaining the same status! Despite which it's regarded as a Western ally. Preposterous. As for corruption, Ukraine has some way to go before it attains the same level as Pakistan which is a nuclear armed, profoundly corrupt, fantastically incompetent basket case. History will condemn Western democracies for the way Ukraine has been treated.
Don't forget that Pakistan is a nominal U.S. (not Western) ally only to counterbalance (or undermine) India, which was not even allied with, but merely friendly with the Soviet Union. That's how U.S. geopolitics work - we pay lip service to democracy, but in fact other countries get our support based on their hostility to our "rivals". That's why we supported the Contras, Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan in the 80's, all manner of violent right wing dictatorships in Latin America, Diem in Vietnam, all kinds of dictators. This is highly relevant to the background of the Ukraine War.
Apart from everything else, I see one huge practical problem. Where would Ukraine test their first device? It's a big country but is not empty enough like the USA, Russia, India, China, or Pakistan. It doesn't have an ally like apartheid South Africa to do it for them as happened with Israel. Or like Australia for the UK. Nor does it have some handy South Pacific paradise island to blow up like the French. And would they be likely to go down the route of the DPRK, who don't give damn about who they irradiate?
Isreal has never tested their full devices.
You can easily test detonation and delivery without core.
Today that is true, but only if you have the expertise to do so. Ukraine has zero experience building nuclear devices. And forty-five years ago it was not true for Israel or South Africa either. In its aftermath a lot was written about the Vega Incident in the South Atlantic, but all stories fade with time. There's no reason why you should know about it. Go look it up. It's fascinating. It was finally confirmed only in 2016.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4890545,00.html
And there's the problem of delivering a nuclear weapon to a target.
If I am not mistaken, Ukraine still doesn't possess a big ballistic missile for throwing a heavy nuclear weapon at 1000+ kilometres distance
Actually, Israel did test its device. See 'Vela Incident': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
Well... that link doesn't really say Israel tested it. It says a host of nations could have been responsible. But, I would definitely say that the likelihood is Israel. Based on where it was in its program. But that's a guess.
This makes my broader point. The opportunity is there for Ukraine.
Sure, the world would be against it. But "the world" has failed to stop a genocide. So it has no moral authority over Ukraine. So, my read is, there would be lots of public condemnation and a lot of back room help.
And then there is the fact that is DPRK can build a bomb under sanctions... so can Ukraine.
Please read the complete summary there: there's simply no doubt it was a nuclear test. The rest is political semantics.
Kursk region should be suitable. Sorry
Ukraine must have a lot of data on nuclear tests. A lot of the data on Nuclear tests was comprehensively done during the cold war.
Cant but agree on this analysis. Having said that I think Ukraine and EU needs to have a similar agreement in place in addition. Sorry to say I dont really trust the Americans. But yes, lets try to build alliances instead of bombs. But if not, the argument presented here makes sense for all small countries. And we might end up with bombs.
A small historical footnote on Israeli development of the Bomb. Israel was supported by many countries in this, among them my own Norway. We delivered the deuterium. Secretly of course, but not so secretly really. This was back when Norway and Israel had a good relationship.
Interesting, I'm sure there are a lot of people int he EU who would want to help Ukraine in this program. And an equal number who either have a cant do mindset or wouldnt want to help.
Few people in the EU would want to see a nuclear war between Ukraine and Russia. The diabolical logic of nuclear weapons means you want to have them yourself (in Ukraine's case, desperately), but you don't want anyone else, even your allies, to acquire them. Because the greater variety of countries and regimes which have them, the greater risk of nuclear war. That's why the "nuclear club" does everything possible to stop "proliferation".
Western lethargy, intransigence and refusal to support conventional arms deliveries to Ukraine are the only guarantors of an eventual nuclear war. It just doesnt work out that Russia will continue bombing Ukraine while Ukraine refuses to rearm with nukes. The best thing about nuclear weapons is that once you have them you dont really need to use them. I dont think Ukraine would want to use them on Russia if and when it gets them. But as things stand today, I and a lot of people dont see how Russia can continue misbehaving in Ukraine without it eventually turning into a conventional war between two nuclear armed states.
Lethargy and intransigence or not, the West is UNABLE to supply conventional arms to Ukraine in volumes which keep up with Russia, without a massive increase of expenditure requiring tax increases and militarization of our economies. We don't do this because it's not politically feasible; in fact continuing support for Ukraine even at the present drip-feed level is looking to be politically unfeasible. Look what Germany just did.
I agree that the risks of nuclear conflict increase, but they increase in any case as we fight an ongoing big war with a nuclear power. And I agree with you that Ukraine producing a Bomb is one of the very plausible risk factors. If I were Ukraine, it's what I would do.
Yeah again, the issue is with us. Increasing expenditure on manufacturing defence goods can be done efficiently without raising taxes too much. The issue is our defence industries are not getting large enough orders. Even here in the US, we do not produce enough artillery shells, not enough GMLRS, not enough ground based AD. We should be producing at least 1 patriot battery a month. But we're spending a lot of money and we need to look into reallocating those funds and restructuring everything. Some companies like Anduril are trying to disrupt the industry in a positive way and are looking to manufacture large scale relatively lower cost items as well which is smart. So either we move to realign our industries or eventually its going to be a conventional war between two nuclear armed states. I honestly think we're past that point anyway.
But "realigning our industries" would require significantly raising taxes (or cutting spending somewhere), because someone has to pay for the steady stream of orders required for it to make sense to anyone to invest in the additional capacity.
The whole problem is that Global Hegemony is expensive even without the capacity to fight a large war. So our military is built to fight small colonial wars on the cheap, and our MIC is built to supply that kind of military. It is not built to supply anyone, whether it's the U.S. Army or the ZSU, fighting a big war of attrition like we have in Ukraine, and to restructure it would be immensely expensive.
We are massively in debt and run large budget deficits, and have immense social problems which are all screaming for money to solve them. We are very much like the late Roman Empire in this, and there is just no way in hell we're going to start spending trillions we don't have to do that, in order to fight big wars far away somewhere. We are not going to "realign" ourselves to become Sparta, not in one lifetime or not perhaps ever. That is of course why guys like Lindsay Grahama think the Ukraine War is such a good deal -- they think it's damaging our rival on the cheap, at a price we can afford, based on Ukraine shedding blood for our hegemony, and never mind that Ukraine will lose in the end.
I can see a case where Ukraine gives up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for NATO membership but I cant see a case where Ukraine joins NATO without nukes because Russia will always try to create a conflict thus giving Western politicians an excuse to reject Ukraine's NATO goals. Ukraine should focus on joining EU and explicitly stating it wont produce nukes(while working on them hardcore). This is the only strategic deterrent that makes sense. No amount of Western conventional aid is going to help Ukraine. But if France can provide some weapons grade plutonium from their breeder reactors then that would be an excellent form of aid.
Providing Ukraine (or any other non-nuke nation) with weapons grade "anything" is highly problematic . . . dangerous! The big-nations' Nuclear Club does not like to add to its membership even though "upstarts" have gained some nuclear weapons potential capability over the decades. As an example of the U.S.'s fear of nuclear proliferation, there are federal laws to prevent recycle of spent nuclear fuel (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) for newer fuel, weapons grade or commercial. Of course, I am not saying that past surreptious activities in this regard have not been pursued by the United States.
I see, well there's a start for everything, I dont have high hopes for our government in the US but possibly a European effort. France seems to be fairly independent from the US when it comes to decision making.
As James Coffey correctly said, the "nuclear club" does not welcome new members at all, not even among their supposed allies. No one, I mean NO ONE, wants to see a nuclear war between Ukraine and Russia, certainly not France, and we can be sure that there will be no official help to Ukraine from any NATO country in acquiring nuclear weapons. If the choice is between complete subjugation and/or destruction of Ukraine, and nuclear war, no one in NATO will hesitate even one second to give up Ukraine. Not to say there might not be some rogue actors helping, but NATO countries will go to great lengths to prevent Ukraine from become a nuclear power. We NATO countries are very, very stupid sometimes, but we're not completely crazy.
But Ukraine's perspective is totally different. Of course it is in their interests to do everything possible to acquire nuclear weapons. This is just one of many conflicts of interest between Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine would also very much like to draw us into the war as direct participants.
Well, Ukraine could have a large enough amount of conventional precision weapons to make any neighbour rethink the risks of attacking
Well you may be very right, but the view of countries very close to Russia or those that historically had issues with Russia with may also act in their own interest. Finland, Poland, the Baltics, could help in some way, maybe not directly but in a way that is material. And its not like Ukraine on its own over the long term cannot achieve this through its own means.