I thought Ukraine had given up their nukes?
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
38 points (95.2% liked)
Death to NATO
1551 readers
77 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They never had them. They were just storing Soviet nukes they couldn't use themselves.
Those wasn't their nukes, and they did, no chance of something like that being kept in secret for so many years during so much political voltas.
They'll kill everyone else if they don't get what they want. Definitely sounds like people we should be trying to placate /s
NAFOs are, predictably, finding a way to make this insane declaration into Russia's fault. "Just leave Ukraine and nothing will happen" when we all know that no one builds a nuke without intending to use it.
They are trying to be Isn'real but unlike those psychopaths, they have no teeth to back up their barking.
I can't imagine Russia would ever allow this to happen.
My thoughts exactly. I think the article is a way to pressure Trump, because it's a well-known fact Trump gets a lot of his info and opinions from the media.
Absolutely, the neocons are in a panic that their favorite pet project is about to lose funding.
It's funny how there's a power struggle between the anti-China and anti-Russia bourgeoisie in the US. Anti-China actually makes material sense, if I was a "captain of industry" in the US I too would be afraid of China's rise and economic power. Anti-Russia and pro-UA doesn't make any sense at all, it's just vibes.
My understanding is that majority of neocons do see China as the main threat. However, there was a debate on whether the US should take on China directly or try to shape the battlefield first by breaking apart Russia. The line of thinking that Russia provides China with a shield in the west and the resources China would need to withstand western blockade is legitimate. The cardinal mistake was underestimating Russian capabilities. The faction that won the debate thought they just had blow hard enough and Russia would collapse. At that point they'd get to Balkanize it and surround China with hostile puppet regimes from the west. That's now backfiring in a spectacular fashion.
A single nuclear strike on a large territory cannot stop Russia. Kyiv should have been given up.
How does the average Mark Hamil think this is going to turn out?
Imagine something absolutely fucking stupid and it'll be even dumber than that.
I doubt they could
If you read the paper, it states that kyiv is not interested in building nukes itself.
It was written by a Ukrainian think tank that stated that kyiv could build a bomb if it wanted using its remaining nuclear reactors. The report was then given to the Ukrainian government.
It's nothing serious.
It was written by a Ukrainian think tank that stated that kyiv could build a bomb if it wanted using its remaining nuclear reactors. The report was then given to the Ukrainian government.
And then published in one of the most respectable and globally-circulated newspapers. It's like when "sources" leak info to the press, it's normally done on purpose to get that info out there. To me, this article reads like a threat; if the US stops the aid, Ukraine will be forced to make a nuclear weapon.
This is “The Times”, not “Time”. This is a right wing rag that isn’t respected by anyone.
None of that means that it isn't a right wing rag that gets laughed it. Is it “more reputable” than the Sun? Probably. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an utter joke.
Yes. but it is most likely part of Trump's daily news briefing.
Granted, 4chan is probably part of his briefing too. I don't give him any credit to choose non-fascist news sources.
And then published in one of the most respectable and globally-circulated newspapers.
This wouldn't be first nor 1000th time when Times is uncritically reposting nonsense from UA sources.
It seems to be a part of an effort to influence Trump to not to turn off the tap. Another one: Boris Johnson says British troops may have to go to Ukraine if Trump cuts support
I expect we are going to see more doomer predictions regarding the US stopping the funding. All of these articles are literally aimed at Trump. I'm pretty sure he started getting briefings as the president-elect, and that includes media/news briefing. If you want an example of how important the media/news is to Trump, his declared Secretary of Defense pick is Peter Hegseth, a "political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2024," Trump watched Fox & Friends religiously while he was president. to the point that the hosts addressed him personally several times.
"Nuclear bomb", "British troops in Ukraine", these are all escalations, and against Trump's stated goals of ending the war quickly.
Liberals are freaking out cause Trump is filling his cabinet with "pro-RU" (but really, anti-UA and anti-war and NATO-skeptic).
Plus i mean its 1 bomb and as soon as they use it Russia turns them into glass. Makes more sense to not use it. Its more valuable as leverage than as a weapon.
The threat of MAD is somehow a greater deterrent than MAD itself.
This is, by definition, not MAD