Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[ubersonic]

It is estimated that Japan could build nuclear weapons within 6-12 months if it wanted to. Can't imagine Ukraine has the capital or technical ability to so within 5 years.

On paper, Ukraine has the money, the expertise and the manufacturing capability to build nuclear weapons on the same timescale as Japan or shorter but they would be Soviet era designs. If they wanted anything more modern though that would indeed take years to develop. Having said that though, a lot of the USSR's best stuff was made in Ukraine, so even a 30+ year old design would be not without teeth and would give the Russians pause for thought, assuming they decided to sit around while they built them

 

[Enkore]

On paper, Ukraine has the money, the expertise and the manufacturing capability to build nuclear weapons on the same timescale as Japan or shorter but they would be Soviet era designs. If they wanted anything more modern though that would indeed take years to develop. Having said that though, a lot of the USSR's best stuff was made in Ukraine, so even a 30+ year old design would be not without teeth and would give the Russians pause for thought, assuming they decided to sit around while they built them

Ukraine is a story how to lose everything like a moron. Zelenskiy is living proof of that tradition. Do you want your country to be totally invaded and no one in world come to your help? Continue doing what you're doing right now.

 

[ubersonic]

Now if Zelenskiy follows through with declaration that he's going to develop Nuclear Weapons. No one in the west even put sanctions on Russia in case of a war.

To be honest I find the fact we haven't imposed sanctions on Russia yet quite disgusting. There are only two reasons any country would station nearly half its army along the border of a non-hostile neighbour: Either they plan to invade or they plan to use the threat of invasion to bully. Either act should be met with a political response, **** waiting for them to actually invade before imposing sanctions, slap them for the threat and if they follow through with it slap them harder.

 

[bingham67]

Have lufthansa cancelled all ukraine or just kiev?

Kyiv and Odessa apparently.

 

[CaptainCook]

To be honest I find the fact we haven't imposed sanctions on Russia yet quite disgusting. There are only two reasons any country would station nearly half its army along the border of a non-hostile neighbour: Either they plan to invade or they plan to use the threat of invasion to bully. Either act should be met with a political response, **** waiting for them to actually invade before imposing sanctions, slap them for the threat and if they follow through with it slap them harder.

Although provocative they have done nothing illegal, they are training in their own territory which they are entitled to do

Would you apply sanctions to France if they moved all their troops to the Spanish border and did a mock invasion, all within their own land?

 

[dowie]

Although provocative they have done nothing illegal, they are training in their own territory which they are entitled to do

Would you apply sanctions to France if they moved all their troops to the Spanish border and did a mock invasion, all within their own land?

WTF are you smoking. Done nothing illegal? Aside from invade and grab a bunch of territory + carrying on directly supporting an insurgency in the east.

 

[dowie]

We've already pulled out of Budapest Memorandum when we said we wont fight Russians.

This is just false, there is no commitment to "fight Russians", Russia is the one threatening invasion not the US or UK.

Now if Zelenskiy follows through with declaration that he's going to develop Nuclear Weapons. No one in the west even put sanctions on Russia in case of a war. Russians could begin with surgical strikes like Israel does on Iran and then follow through with total invasion.

That doesn't necessarily follow either, the west certainly could put sanctions on Russia in the event of an invasion and currently quite clearly intends to do so.

 

[ubersonic]

Although provocative they have done nothing illegal

True, but neither did Iraq or Afghanistan and we did a hell of a lot more than sanction them. In all honestly I'm surprised that international law doesn't have anything on actively threatening a neighbour militarily, after all it's illegal to stick a gun in somebodies face and demand they do what you ask, even if you don't pull the trigger.

It's all good for our politicians to speak of "sanctions the like of which have never been seen" if they do invade but they should have already started imposing the minor stuff with ramp ups/down as troops invade/withdraw.

Would you apply sanctions to France if they moved all their troops to the Spanish border and did a mock invasion, all within their own land?

That's a bit of a false equivalence as we both know it would never happen, but if it did then obviously sanctions would be applied by the EU as that's standard practise for one member actively threatening another militarily.

 

[Enkore]

This is just false, there is no commitment to "fight Russians", Russia is the one threatening invasion not the US or UK.



That doesn't necessarily follow either, the west certainly could put sanctions on Russia in the event of an invasion and currently quite clearly intends to do so.

What mental gymnastics do you have to do to justify not defending Ukrainians against invasion from Russians? When the paperwork signed in Budapest memorandum promises just that, defending against aggressors in event of invasion in lieu of nuclear weapons.

Did you read my statement? Ukranian's are saying that you're supposed to protect us per Zelenskiy and Budapest Memo - you're not doing it.

So obviously you're doing major mental gymnastics to get out of agreement.

So we are OK with Israeli strikes on Iran to prevent Nukes and whole world sanctioned Iran over it. Yet we're just going to shrug our shoulders and be like - OK Ukraine can have em.

 

[Puzzled]

I see Belarus is now saying that they would host Russian nuclear weapons if under threat.

Shame there wasn't an "accident" earlier with putin around all that military equipment. Old men starting to feel like they are running out of time to complete their legacy can make some very irrational decisions.

 

[ubersonic]

What mental gymnastics do you have to do to justify not defending Ukrainians against invasion from Russians? When the paperwork signed in Budapest memorandum promises just that, defending against aggressors in event of invasion in lieu of nuclear weapons.

The problem is, and to be clear I don't like this, the agreement signed doesn't say that.

The promise was that if they gave up their nuclear stockpile and nuclear launchers/bombers we would come to their aid if Russia invaded them or threatened to nuke them. But due to some ambiguity in the English version of the document everyone signed (most experts agree caused by a missing comma) it actually reads that we will come to their aid if Russia nukes them or threatens to nuke them. Our politicians have made it very clear that they consider our obligations to be limited to what was signed and not what was agreed.

 

[Enkore]

The problem is, and to be clear I don't like this, the agreement signed doesn't say that.

The promise was that if they gave up their nuclear stockpile and nuclear launchers/bombers we would come to their aid if Russia invaded them or threatened to nuke them. But due to some ambiguity in the English version of the document everyone signed it actually reads that we will come to their aid if Russia nukes them or threatens to nuke them. Our politicians have made it very clear that they consider our obligations to be limited to what was signed and not what was agreed.

Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Ukrainians and Zelenskiy clearly see it differently.

Imagine if at the time, this was spirit of the agreement. Give up your bombers/nukes so we can write a strong worded letter should you be invaded. I mean come on, this is insanity.

Nuclear weapons are deterrent, no one wants to use it. They traded their deterrent of nukes for political deterrent which turned out to be a turd.

 

[ubersonic]

Imagine if at the time, this was spirit of the agreement. Give up your bombers/nukes so we can write a strong worded letter should you be invaded. I mean come on, this is insanity.

Like I said I agree, unfortunately that's what Ukraine signed an agreement for and our politicians (and the US ones) have made it clear that's what they intend to abide by (shock as politicians take easy way out).

 

[Enkore]

Like I said I agree, unfortunately that's what Ukraine signed an agreement for and our politicians (and the US ones) have made it clear that's what they intend to abide by (shock as politicians take easy way out).

Lets hope we don't find a way out of Article 5 same way. Like I said before, the first bell was with Turkey. They shot Russian plane OVER THEIR OWN TERRITORY.

How was this justified act of aggression by Turkey therefore not eligible for article 5 is beyond me.

 

[ubersonic]

Lets hope we don't find a way out of Article 5 same way.

Oh article 5 is easy to get out of if you want to, it requires you to take action to assist the member invoking it but doesn't specify what action/assistance should be taken or even that it should involve military support. It was specifically reworded before signing to ensure the US wasn't law bound to join a war in Europe and could simply refuse to show up.

 

[Enkore]

Oh article 5 is easy to get out of if you want to, it requires you to take action to assist the member invoking it but doesn't specify what action/assistance should be taken or even that it should involve military support. It was specifically reworded before signing to ensure the US wasn't law bound to join a war in Europe and could simply refuse to show up.

Wow. Great news. If things kick off in Ukraine, I'd suggest people to flee west until they reach France in very least.

If you read what I said multiple pages before, I have serious concerns whether Americans will pull through on Article 5 for Latvia. Yet somehow in West, the Article 5 is seen as some godly force that will never fall. I thought so too, after seeing Turkish incident with Russia and how we wiped our arses with Budapest Memorandum - I am concerned.

 

[alchal]

Lets hope we don't find a way out of Article 5 same way. Like I said before, the first bell was with Turkey. They shot Russian plane OVER THEIR OWN TERRITORY.

How was this justified act of aggression by Turkey therefore not eligible for article 5 is beyond me.

Eh? In English please as I really don't follow wtf you are getting at with this silly line of thought.

Turkey shot down thier plane and that was that, neither side declared war or invaded etc, who would trigger article 5 and why???

 

[Custor]

What mental gymnastics do you have to do to justify not defending Ukrainians against invasion from Russians? Snip

https://apply.army.mod.uk/

Crack on. Or you want a direct flight there?

 

[Enkore]

https://apply.army.mod.uk/

Crack on. Or you want a direct flight there?

Strange suggestion to apply to UK's army when BJ said specifically he will not participate in the war?

 

[dowie]

What mental gymnastics do you have to do to justify not defending Ukrainians against invasion from Russians? When the paperwork signed in Budapest memorandum promises just that, defending against aggressors in event of invasion in lieu of nuclear weapons.

Did you read my statement? Ukranian's are saying that you're supposed to protect us per Zelenskiy and Budapest Memo - you're not doing it.

So obviously you're doing major mental gymnastics to get out of agreement.

Utter nonsense, no mental gymnastics here, there is no obligation on the part of the US to go to war with Russia, that's just lunacy. It was carefully drafted to avoid such an obligation:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24539145?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia’s president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does not in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it’s 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).