- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Summary
A Russian presidential plane from the Kremlin’s Rossiya Special Flight Squadron visited New York and Washington, D.C., in late December, sparking speculation amid tense U.S.-Russia relations.
Moscow claimed the flight carried rotating diplomats, but its timing raises questions about Trump’s potential dealings with Vladimir Putin.
Trump has promised to end the Ukraine war in a day, alarming NATO officials who fear a deal that could harm Kyiv and alter NATO’s eastern border dynamics.
The flight highlights ongoing diplomatic maneuvering ahead of Trump’s January 20 inauguration.
There are plenty of nuclear weapons close to Ukraine that can very easily and quickly be launched if whatever necessary scenario I can’t come up with that would require a nuclear weapon happens.
The UK currently has 120 of their 225 nuclear weapons deployed and France currently has 290 of their 280 deployed and Putin is well aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
For the same exact reason that all those surrounding nations aren’t committing their own forces to the defense of Ukraine is the exact same reason why providing Ukraine itself with a nuke as a deterrent to Russia’s use is essential.
Yes, other nations surrounding Ukraine have nukes. However, the odds are much higher that should Russia use nukes on Ukraine that all the surrounding nations would furrow their eyebrows heavily and condemn the attacks but ultimately do nothing because they want to contain the damage to Ukraine. Chamberlains everywhere would simply reiterate, “This is a tragic day for the world, but we cannot risk a greater conflict.” Meanwhile Tump, of course, would look the other way and seek to undermine any substantive NATO response at every turn.
To reemphasize my point that many seem to have missed: This is about giving the actual victim — Ukraine — agency to defend itself directly from a nuclear threat. I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.
He will not be in power in perpetuity.
Perhaps not; however:
This is practically speaking only reinstating the Budapest Memorandum given Russia’s failure to comply.
It is very probable he remains in power over the next 4 years, which are the most pivotal 4 years of Ukraine’s future and most dire period for nuclear threat against them.
I don’t think you are understanding my point. The next person to come to power in Ukraine might decide to use it proactively. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn’t get put back in.
Respectfully, I believe I do understand your point and I’ll try to echo your side to verify that; but you may not be understanding mine.
What I believe your point is: If we give Ukraine nukes now, the future leadership could be volatile, thereby increasing the net-volatility of the region.
However, let’s consider what I view as reasonable assumptions at the geopolitical level, both now and into the future:
If say, 4 years from now or whenever Zelenskyy (still overwhelmingly popular in Ukraine) steps down, the future leadership of Ukraine becomes volatile, then MAD theory still works symmetrically; after all, Russia clearly has many more nukes than Ukraine and that spells their destruction.
Practically-speaking, Ukraine geopolitical inertia has moved heavily toward the orbit of the West and its humanitarian values.
If future Ukrainian leadership is unstable, it is therefore reasonable to assume that they are likely Russian-centric and sympathetic; therefore, they would be unlikely to unilaterally and proactively attack Russia.
We trust Ukraine NOW. We trust Zelenskyy NOW.
The risk of Russia launching nuclear attacks against Ukraine during Trump’s administration is orders of magnitude greater than the risk in the preceding years going back to 2014.
Therefore, we should be far more concerned about the immediate, real danger Russia poses to Ukraine as opposed to the speculative danger of future hypotheticals down the road that — in my opinion — do not hold water given the aforementioned geopolitical climate. When Russia and North Korea already have nukes and are a global threat, I really am not concerned about the small Ukrainian country who is currently fighting the good fight on behalf of all of us. Seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Why do you think there is any risk of Russia launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine? What would that gain them?
Russia is hemorrhaging losses themselves while their economy on a war time footing cannot sustain this in perpetuity; after all a smaller Soviet-Afghanistan war contributed to the over-toppling of the mightier USSR — mostly along economic lines. They need an off-ramp themselves, and fairly quickly. To suggest the country that has continued to escalate war crimes in Ukraine would suddenly stop escalating — especially now having a key ally in who was once their largest geopolitical threat — I think is somewhat naive.
Putting myself in the shoes of a psychopath like Putin, you’re gauging how far you can push the limit on the geopolitical stage. Would I want to end this conflict sooner than later and decisively? Would I not be praised domestically as a hero who vanquished a foreign adversary? Yes. Is it likely I’ll ever actually conquer Kyiv by conventional means if the first months failed with my forces at their strongest? No. Could I get away with a nuke under Biden? Probably not. Could I with Trump? Probably yes.
To ask what would that gain for Russia is kind of moot in my view because ultimately, Russia has already lost far more than they’ve gained in waging this conflict. Their economy is in tatters; their armies exposed as weak and incompetent and crippled. What geopolitical status they had in the West before has completely washed away. Sure they gained something like 17-19% of land including Crimea, but they’ll be suffering for decades to come. This is mostly about legacy and vengeance for the cold war in the eyes of Putin and that’s reflected in his own essay and the Foundations of Geopolitics.
Either way, the threat is enough that has deterred the West from engaging in conventional defense of Ukraine. I’d say that’s concerning enough to warrant provision of a handful of nuclear missiles to Ukraine to serve as a direct deterrent. Ideally one would simply move these nukes into Ukraine and then reveal to Putin that they have already been put in place and ready to respond. Again, the goal is deterrence of course.
Edit: Let’s not forget that Putin recently escalated yet again, using an inert MIRV intermediate ballistic missile whose payload would normally contain multiple nuclear warheads. (the first documented use of a MIRV in combat, apparently).
There’s this thing called wind. Why on Earth would France and Britain allow fallout and irradiated soil to blow in their direction on Trump’s behalf?
You seem to think that the U.S. and Russia are the only two countries involved here or that somehow the rest of Europe would just sit back and put up with that.
Also:
It’s not moot at all. With that comment, you’re basically saying Russia could do any irrational thing at all, so why stop with a nuke? Maybe they’ll spray anthrax spores across all of Ukraine too. Maybe they’ll send a hoard of plague rats. Maybe they’ll crash all of their satellites into Ukrainian territory for good measure. Why not?
By this rationale, let’s just assume Russia will do random bad stuff. Because. And if that’s the case, why would Ukraine having a nuke themselves give them pause?
I agree, but many are like:
Oh no 😱, that would be crossing a Russian read line! 🤮
Man I hate this argument, Russia only respect one thing, and that is strength. And Putin is insane, he is gambling with extremely high stakes, and has upped the stakes consistently for years now.
All the pearl clutching people are doing, is only helping Russia.
Exactly. I say fuck Putin’s red line and give Ukraine nukes to deter Russia unilaterally.
If surrounding nations are unwilling to commit conventional ground forces or establish a No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine for risk of escalation, can we really count on them to respond effectively should tactical nukes or worse be used by Russia against Ukraine? I think not.
Ukraine acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Ukraine
Yep, the Budapest Memorandum. Prior to the current government and contingent, of course, on Russia providing Ukraine with sovereignty and security assurances from (as source notes), UK, US, and Russia.
Naturally, Russia reneged on their side of the agreement.
Yes, but there could easily be doubt those would be used to defend Ukraine, and make whatever country using them a Russian nuclear target.
If Ukraine has their own, it’s a way more obvious defense for Ukraine, and Russia will know for sure they can’t use nukes without retaliation with nukes.