This reads like a man who is grasping for anything.
This reads like a man who is slowly losing his mind.
"woe is me, because we legally gave up our nuclear weapons as part of international treaties Russia is liberating ethnic Russians who we were bombing en-mass. why us? pls give us membership in NATO and turn this into a world war, I promise you'll benefit"
In addition to being an unelected dictator, Zelensky is essentially threatening to illegally acquire a nuke and then detonate it in Russia. This should be front page news but since Ukraine isn't a Muslim or Asian country, the establishment isn't too concerned.
Remember when he openly demanded nuclear strikes on Russia in 2022? Western media hushed it out and when it mades rounds in the internet every single lib just collectively went "nuh-huh, he didn't said that" despite it was exactly what he said.
It's also not true, South Africa gave up nuclear weapons and we have been at a relative peace for 30 years now.
TrueAnon rule for life: Never, ever, give up your nukes. If you don't have any, BUILD THEM. If you absolutely have to get rid of them, always keep ONE hid in reserve.He's sorta right that Nukes have been the one way a lot of these smaller/geopolitically vulnerable countries have been able to protect themselves.
Libya gave up nukes then gets shit on by NATO, whilst DPRK is able to fend off the modern era US coup bullshit through nuclear proliferation.
US-Israel is desperate to retain the nuclear monopoly in west Asia exactly because it allows Israeli-US forces to move around the area with impunity. Nukes are the ultimate force multiplier in that regard.
As long as nukes exist, they create the conditions for owning them in a circular fashion, because without nuclear weapons you suddenly have no way to deter a conventional invasion beyond a conventional army; And that only works insofar that your neighbours are militarily weaker than you.
That all being said, Ukraine has no route to creating a nuclear weapon beyond a dirty bomb, which even for a NATO proxy would (pun unintended) blow up in their faces spectacularly. All this rhetoric does is heighten Russian nuclear posturing and increase the rate of Russian advances along the front.
There is a very alarming claim that they're pursuing and potentially weeks away from a nuclear weapon. The west is just deranged enough and Zelensky as well to use such a weapon, however crude on Moscow. For the west it presents an opportunity to hobble and weaken an enemy while keeping their own hands clean enough that they think perhaps they will escape retaliation, that Ukraine will get nuked into nothing but that doesn't matter because it will have served its purpose.
Recently Zelensky zig-zagged back and forth on this, saying that they either needed to join NATO imminently or get nukes, one or the other, seeing as NATO is off the table this is perhaps a way to attempt to threaten his western backers but he may underestimate how much they'd in fact enjoy that.
Is this a threat? Either NATO or we will have nukes. This are words I never expected to hear from Ukraine 2 years ago. Zelensky is desperate as fuck. And this shows also perfectly, how the west treats other countries. Ukraine is bleeding out, birth rate is shit, 25% of Ukrainian refugees are not sure if they want back while 35% want to go back if its secure there. The adventure in Kursk is failing and Russia is gaining more and more land. This is a really bad situation for Zelensky.
Ukraine is connected to the navel of Western imperialism and is therefore completely dependent. They even offer their own country directly for sale, in terms of resources and so on. Now Zelensky speaks about nukes.
Actually Zelensky stated in the Munich security conference shortly before the war, that he wanted to create a nuclear arsenal for Ukraine.
Hello Biden, it's Zelensky, we need five billion nuke to bomb Donetsk children. Slava Ukraini.
IIRC from something I read years ago but even if Ukraine didn't give up their warheads they wouldn't have been able to use them cause the C&C for them was based in Russia, sounds like a technical challenge they could have eventually overcome, anyone know what I'm on about?
Remember the fears from 90's that some of the warheads stationed in Ukraine might have been missing? Turned out, even if they sold them to some terrorists like political thriller writers suggested, it would still be safer for the world than leaving them in Ukrainian hands.
Yup. Both sides of the cold war developed "permissive action links" that allowed forward deployment of nuclear warheads on foreign soil (and to prevent rogue generals who could leverage nuclear weapons for political power domestically). These are what "nuclear codes" refer to, and famously were set to 0000 0000 for the first few years in the US due to fears the codes couldn't be dispersed in time of nuclear war.
Ukraine's warheads were essentially inert, but any detected attempt to break the C&C would've probably prompted an invasion of a scale much larger than the one we're witnessing now, so it made sense for them to transfer the nukes back to Russia.
This is nonsense because even Ukrainian SSR was not a nuclear state.
I mean they DID have nuclear weapons, just that they were under control of the Russian SSR command and control systems. Would've been a lot easier to quickly nuclearise their military by cracking the locks on existing nukes than to engineer an indigenous design.
TBF, it is always stupid to give up your nukes.
