Should Ukraine get their Nuclear Weapons back?

[CowboyTed]

Thirty years ago US, Britain and Russia signed a deal with Ukraine that they will protect them in exchange for their nuclear weapons.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Now it's asking why

It's 30 years since Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal. Some now question why they did.

www.bbc.com

This is an agreement US and UK went into because a poor country like Ukraine having these weapons could be unsecure and evetually end up in a bad actors hands( North Korea, Al Queda, Iran....)...

It was the US that was pushing the deal... US wanted that security for itself as they predicted that they would be the main aim of those bad actors... There was no metion or expectation of Ukraine joining or not join EU or NATO.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So Russia then decides to invade Ukraine in 2014... The US and EU knowing their obligations to the deal sanctioned Ukraine, then Russia invaded Crimea, the sanctions increased and US/EU started to arm and train Ukraine to better protect themselves ....

Russia then went for the whole country. Ukraine repealed them and a three year war started...

Now Trump wants to renege on the whole deal, he is basically saying that Ukraine were fools to sign a deal with America because US doesn't honour deals any more...
As with any deal, if you back up, you have to give them there nuclear weapons back...

US loosing trust in the world severely weakens its globally standing. Hard to do business if there is no trust.
US got what they wanted and Ukraine can basically goto hell..

 

[ColonelAngus]

Do you want Ukraine to get Nukes?

 

[Polishprince]

It wasn't the US that made the deal, it was the Democrat Party under Slick Willie.

Democrats should be out there volunteering to fight, not those of us who had nothing to do with the "deal".

BTW, the "deal" was never ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution requires for treaties, so there is no reason for Trump to honor it.

 

[CowboyTed]

Do you want Ukraine to get Nukes?

No, Think the deal should be honoured...

It was a good deal, Ukraine with nuclear weapons sounds like a bad idea.

 

[Polishprince]

No, Think the deal should be honoured...

It was a good deal, Ukraine with nuclear weapons sounds like a bad idea.

The deal was never ratified, so it wasn't a deal with the US government, but with only one administration.

 

[22lcidw]

Thirty years ago US, Britain and Russia signed a deal with Ukraine that they will protect them in exchange for their nuclear weapons.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Now it's asking why

It's 30 years since Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal. Some now question why they did.

www.bbc.com

This is an agreement US and UK went into because a poor country like Ukraine having these weapons could be unsecure and evetually end up in a bad actors hands( North Korea, Al Queda, Iran....)...

It was the US that was pushing the deal... US wanted that security for itself as they predicted that they would be the main aim of those bad actors... There was no metion or expectation of Ukraine joining or not join EU or NATO.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So Russia then decides to invade Ukraine in 2014... The US and EU knowing their obligations to the deal sanctioned Ukraine, then Russia invaded Crimea, the sanctions increased and US/EU started to arm and train Ukraine to better protect themselves ....

Russia then went for the whole country. Ukraine repealed them and a three year war started...

Now Trump wants to renege on the whole deal, he is basically saying that Ukraine were fools to sign a deal with America because US doesn't honour deals any more...
As with any deal, if you back up, you have to give them there nuclear weapons back...

US loosing trust in the world severely weakens its globally standing. Hard to do business if there is no trust.
US got what they wanted and Ukraine can basically goto hell..

You as a Prog had not an issue with the United States leaving Viet Nam. When nations deny their promises, the locals always suffer. Each administration sets up agreements that affect future ones. And at times it leaves them in a bind. When we saw politicians, entertainers and others go to Ukraine when that was started, you could smell something. Something that stunk. It was at that point that I knew as more proof the American people had no control of their government. We have politicians who are more communist than the Ukrainian government has residue from their past.

 

[Polishprince]

No, Think the deal should be honoured...

It was a good deal, Ukraine with nuclear weapons sounds like a bad idea.

BTW, the deal wasn't honored when B. Hussein O was ruling America and the Russian Federation was moving into Crimea.

Sounds like you just want to get Trump involved in a war that the left didn't fight when it had a chance.

 

[CowboyTed]

It wasn't the US that made the deal, it was the Democrat Party under Slick Willie.

Democrats should be out there volunteering to fight, not those of us who had nothing to do with the "deal".

BTW, the "deal" was never ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution requires for treaties, so there is no reason for Trump to honor it.

Let me explain democracy, Bill Clinton was elected President of US at the time...

The Republican Party supported the deal too, GOP was very much against Nuclear proliferation at the time and considered a major threat to US way of life.

First, both parties maintained their agreement on the need for deterrence, albeit using a smaller force. Second, both parties advocated for a decrease in the size of the nuclear arsenal in the early ‘90s, and for an increase in defense spending in the mid ‘90s. Third, both parties shifted their focus toward preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially to rogue states like North Korea and Iran. For example, in 1992, the Republicans pledged to prevent “outlaw nations” like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and others from acquiring WMDs, while Democrats pledged to “get tough” on those that peddle nuclear technologies. Furthermore, both parties also focused on reducing Russia’s arsenal and ensuring that Soviet weapons did not fall into terrorists’ hands.

Nuclear Fission: The Political Polarization of Nuclear Weapons Issues - The Hamiltonian

The Alexander Hamilton Society (AHS) is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, national organization that seeks to identify, educate, and launch young men and women into foreign policy and national security careers imbued with the Hamiltonian perspective of strong and principled American leadership in...

hamiltonian.alexanderhamiltonsociety.org

It was signed by the US President, that US agreeing... GOP at the time were behind it and supported it...

Lets be very clear, US can say no deal now but give them back their weapons... That is what you are saying I think..

 

[Contumacious]

So Russia then decides to invade Ukraine in 2014...

Why don't you research before posting bullshit ?

"The overthrow of the democratically elected and neutralist President of Ukraine by a U.S. coup in February 2014 and installation by the U.S. of a rabidly anti-Russian regime instead, was done with the ultimate objective of posting U.S. nuclear missiles there against The Kremlin. The war in Ukraine started with that very bloody U.S. coup. Immediately, the U.S.-installed new leader of Ukraine changed Ukraine’s top generals and installed ones who declared that they would carry out a “filtration” to eliminate their opponents. This was necessary so that in such regions as Donbass and Crimea, where the vote had been over 75% for the U.S.-overthrown President, enough of the residents would be killed or else flee into Russia, so that ONLY anti-Russian candidates would then be able to win ‘democratic’ elections in Ukraine, and so the U.S.-installed regime would then remain permanently, but do so in a ‘democratic’ way (in order for the U.S. and its colonies — or ‘allies’ — to be able to claim they were fighting for “democracy,” which is the exact opposite of the truth)."

What Provoked Russia’s ‘Unprovoked’ Invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 - LewRockwell

What provoked it was the same thing that provoked John Fitzgerald Kennedy to threaten the Soviet Union and Cuba with a U.S. invasion if the Soviet Union were to post its nuclear missiles in Cuba a mere 1,131 miles (30 minutes) away from America’s central command in Washington DC in 1962, but...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[CowboyTed]

BTW, the deal wasn't honored when B. Hussein O was ruling America and the Russian Federation was moving into Crimea.

Sounds like you just want to get Trump involved in a war that the left didn't fight when it had a chance.

So you think the deal is dead, need to return their Nukes... So are we going to give them there Nukes back or equivalent?

 

[Polishprince]

Let me explain democracy, Bill Clinton was elected President of US at the time...

The Republican Party supported the deal too, GOP was very much against Nuclear proliferation at the time and considered a major threat to US way of life.

First, both parties maintained their agreement on the need for deterrence, albeit using a smaller force. Second, both parties advocated for a decrease in the size of the nuclear arsenal in the early ‘90s, and for an increase in defense spending in the mid ‘90s. Third, both parties shifted their focus toward preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially to rogue states like North Korea and Iran. For example, in 1992, the Republicans pledged to prevent “outlaw nations” like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and others from acquiring WMDs, while Democrats pledged to “get tough” on those that peddle nuclear technologies. Furthermore, both parties also focused on reducing Russia’s arsenal and ensuring that Soviet weapons did not fall into terrorists’ hands.

Nuclear Fission: The Political Polarization of Nuclear Weapons Issues - The Hamiltonian

The Alexander Hamilton Society (AHS) is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, national organization that seeks to identify, educate, and launch young men and women into foreign policy and national security careers imbued with the Hamiltonian perspective of strong and principled American leadership in...

hamiltonian.alexanderhamiltonsociety.org

It was signed by the US President, that US agreeing... GOP at the time were behind it and supported it...

Lets be very clear, US can say no deal now but give them back their weapons... That is what you are saying I think..

The Constitution is clear.

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

No ratification, no deal.

 

[CowboyTed]

You as a Prog had not an issue with the United States leaving Viet Nam. When nations deny their promises, the locals always suffer. Each administration sets up agreements that affect future ones. And at times it leaves them in a bind. When we saw politicians, entertainers and others go to Ukraine when that was started, you could smell something. Something that stunk. It was at that point that I knew as more proof the American people had no control of their government. We have politicians who are more communist than the Ukrainian government has residue from their past.

So you are pulling out of the deal?

 

[Blaster]

So you think the deal is dead, need to return their Nukes... So are we going to give them there Nukes back or equivalent?

Bill Clinton was responsible for Ukraine giving their nukes away.

 

[CowboyTed]

Why don't you research before posing bullshit ?

"The overthrow of the democratically elected and neutralist President of Ukraine by a U.S. coup in February 2014 and installation by the U.S. of a rabidly anti-Russian regime instead, was done with the ultimate objective of posting U.S. nuclear missiles there against The Kremlin. The war in Ukraine started with that very bloody U.S. coup. Immediately, the U.S.-installed new leader of Ukraine changed Ukraine’s top generals and installed ones who declared that they would carry out a “filtration” to eliminate their opponents. This was necessary so that in such regions as Donbass and Crimea, where the vote had been over 75% for the U.S.-overthrown President, enough of the residents would be killed or else flee into Russia, so that ONLY anti-Russian candidates would then be able to win ‘democratic’ elections in Ukraine, and so the U.S.-installed regime would then remain permanently, but do so in a ‘democratic’ way (in order for the U.S. and its colonies — or ‘allies’ — to be able to claim they were fighting for “democracy,” which is the exact opposite of the truth)."

What Provoked Russia’s ‘Unprovoked’ Invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 - LewRockwell

What provoked it was the same thing that provoked John Fitzgerald Kennedy to threaten the Soviet Union and Cuba with a U.S. invasion if the Soviet Union were to post its nuclear missiles in Cuba a mere 1,131 miles (30 minutes) away from America’s central command in Washington DC in 1962, but...

www.lewrockwell.com

You are posting an opinion piece...

This basically is calling him a liar... Hitler would get a better rating than this...
Lew Rockwell is a website that promotes conspiracies, pseudoscience, and fringe economic theories. Lew Rockwell uses minimal loaded words in their headlines and articles

Get real dude... Come back to reality..

 

[CowboyTed]

Bill Clinton was responsible for Ukraine giving their nukes away.

With support from both GOP and Dems at the time...

You seem to be trying to invalidate the agreement even though it had pretty universal agreement at the time...

So are you saying Ukraine should get their Nukes back?

 

[Contumacious]

You are posting an opinion piece...

View attachment 1081450

This basically is calling him a liar... Hitler would get a better rating than this...
Lew Rockwell is a website that promotes conspiracies, pseudoscience, and fringe economic theories. Lew Rockwell uses minimal loaded words in their headlines and articles

Get real dude... Come back to reality..

So did you .

What 's wrong with "an opinion piece" based on historical facts ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[CowboyTed]

So did you .

What 's wrong with "an opinion piece" based on historical facts ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Where is the proof it was a 'US' Coup?

Where was US installing anyone... Have you evidence of US organising the Orange revolution?

There was a lot of Russian Propaganda about it which this author is pushing... Get a more credible source... That is easy pull apart and if you consider what that guy is saying as facts..

Honestly, that guy will tell what you want to hear... It is dogfood for the brain..

 

[Polishprince]

With support from both GOP and Dems at the time...

You seem to be trying to invalidate the agreement even though it had pretty universal agreement at the time...

So are you saying Ukraine should get their Nukes back?

I wouldn't think so. I am against war, especially Nuclear War which is what the libs are lobbying for now in Ukraine.. I don't think the Nukes that Ukraine gave up 30 years ago are around any more anyhow, so this is a moot point.

 

[Scoutster]

Hell no, anybody that thinks giving nukes back to Ukraine is an option is insane.

 

[Contumacious]

Where is the proof it was a 'US' Coup?

I can not believe that you posted all that bullcrap and now are asking for evidence of the Coup.

In December 2013 Obama gave Victoria Nuland $5,000,000,000.00 to start the Maidan Color Revolution - in February 2014 Obama removed Viktor Yanukovych , Ukraine's duly elected President.

Ukraine on Fire (2016) ⭐ 6.3 | Documentary

1h 35m

www.imdb.com