Slashdot Mirror
Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. ... Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.' The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated 'with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well.'"
Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.
Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power
Missile
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
I think we've all gotten complacent with the idea that another World War couldn't happen. They thought the same thing in the 20's (anyone remember the Kellogg–Briand Pact?). But it can not only still happen, but I think people would be surprised at how little it would take to actually set it off. That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months? You do realize that Ukraine power supply is 50% nuclear?
There are nations in this world that can build nuclear weapons within months, if they wanted to. They simply choose not to. I would name Ukraine as one of these nations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.
"Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.
Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?
But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.
"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
> Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?
As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I already posted this above:
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:
1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.
Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.
And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.
Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield - 20-02-2007
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.
You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.
Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea"
I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!
Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They have a prior agreement to be in Crimea to secure their naval base in Sevastopol. They certainly don't have any prior agreement to blockade and assault Ukrainian army bases and barracks and border posts.
This isn't even to mention the uniformed troops with no identification patches, which everybody knows are Russian (by their own numerous admissions when asked), but which Russia refuses to acknowledge outright. That alone is a war crime.
What I think isn't getting talked about is that this is a much broader political threat. Ukraine gave up it's nukes under the assurance that the interested parties would protect it from each other. Russia has now reneged on that treaty, and the MP is reminding the US, Great Britain, and the world that we have an obligation to intervene.
It might be tempting to simply let Russia get away with this and avoid the threat of renewed nuclear war (cold or otherwise), but if we do that we also tell every other nation that has disarmed, or is considering disarming, that we cannot be trusted to honor our obligations under those treaties, severely undermining decades of work on disarmament.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Contrary to what your propaganda sources claim there is not the slightest doubt that Putin has violated public international law and basically all existing treaties between Russia and the Ukraine. It also doesn't take much intelligence to see who's the bad guy here, namely the one who sends masked soldiers as thugs into a peaceful neighboring country claiming they are there for "protection", besieging army bases and threatening & beating up inhabitants who do not speak Russian. The act is particularly evil, because the Russian and the Ukrainian speaking people in the Ukraine never had any problems getting along with each other, and now Putin's thugs are creating unrest in order to destabilize the new government in Kiev.
It's a fucking disgrace and you know it.
And what other chance Iran has to avoid US invasion? It is coming sooner or later.
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
Also the use of the Night Wolves violates article 43:
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Yes, I do realize that. The problem is that Russian has two distinct words denoting Russian ethnicity/self-identification ("russkiy") and citizenship ("rossiyanin") which does not exist in English. The soldiers in the videos use the word that denotes citizenship. Not to mention various other slip ups (some have even named the place of origin where their units are normally stationed; heck, there was one guy from Pskov VDV who was openly wearing a cap with it inscribed!).
Anyway, at this point, believing that tens of thousands of troops, all dressed in brand spanking new Russian digital camo (which was only adopted a few years before and not used by any other ex-Soviet republic), carrying the best gear that Russian army has at its disposal (Pecheneg, AS Val etc), and riding around on BTRs with Russian flag colors on the tips of their exhausts, are some kind of "spontaneously organized local self defense force" requires going so far beyond Occam's razor that it's not even funny. Anyone who seriously believes that there are no Russian troops in Crimea is either not familiar with the facts, or plainly retarded, or is intentionally misrepresenting the issue.