Clearly false. Nukes are just not that useful in about anything except the end of the world. If you're fighting a Ukraine-style war, nukes are worthless.

Ukraine is only fighting an Ukraine-style war because it lacked nukes to begin with. Which, btw, they lack because we agreed to defend them from Russia if they agreed to not develop nukes.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Even better than that: the deal was that they should get rid of the ones they had.

There is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum about defend from Russia.

Yeah. In fact Russia was one of the nations that promised to protect Ukraine from attacks.

But back then it didn't look like Russia was the primary risk to the free countries of this planet.

Yes it did, the Cold War had just ended but Russia and USSR was still seen as the enemy by the US. It’s not that different from now. The difference is Ukraine was basically considered to be a part of Russia back then.

That was true before the US government was captured by a Russian asset elected via Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns. Now, the US has joined the bad guys.

Lol, where do you guys keep coming from?

Even though it indeed doesn't look great, I think it's still too early to call US like that. Trump is behaving not unlike Biden insofar that his mind has clearly degraded over the last few years significantly.

It's up to the people supporting him and about who talks to him just before he issues actual orders. Recently, it has been people like Putin which is reflected on his output. Others wilö talk to him too.

Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. They otherwise would never have allowed the formation of a separate government.

The insane rhetoric of Biden and Zelensky and specifically entertaining the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is what led to this tragedy.

It’d be like Mexico joining the USSR. Do you think the USA would simply let that happen?

As if neither Trump nor Putin has reneged on a deal before.

For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Russia thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition. They poison journalists outside of Russia. They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.

>For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Ukraine thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-cons...

>They poison journalists outside of Ukraine.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/6/us-intelligence-say...

>They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/24744-the-tragic-end-...

Food for thought.

False equivalency, comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.

> comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.

I'm sure Russia feels the same when considering the prospect of a neighbor joining an nuclear armed international alliance constructed specifically to oppose it's power and existence.

My goto analogy for this is the hypothetical of Mexico joining the USSR. Sure it sounds far fetched, but how do you think the USA would react to that type of situation?

Your goto analogy sucks. The USA is not trying to occupy Mexico.

NATO is a defense pact.

I think you need to lookup the definition of the word hypothetical. The point of the exercise is to imagine a scenario where the players are reversed to imagine how they would react.

My quibble is not the hypothetical, it is your implicit claim that the situations are similar. Thats what an analogy is.

The mere fact of your defending Russian invasion of Ukraine is enough to completely discredit your opinion on the matter.

>NATO is a defense pact.

Oh lordy. I only ever hear this on the internet and I always find it bizarre. Who is telling people this? University professors? Where and in what subjects? Prime time news programs? Again, in what countries? I've been in the military for 20 years and I've never heard an NCO or officer utter these words. Because it's nonsense. Defense pacts don't conduct totally-offensive air campaigns against countries that none of their members are at war with.[1] There is no formal legal mechanism for NATO as an organization to act as an enforcement arm for UN Resolutions, by the way. If there was, NATO probably should have been bombing Israel since UN Resolution 497 in 1981.

[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm

First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable.

Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression.

I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda, but the fact that you are provides moe than enough justification to completely ignore your claims.

> First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable.

The purpose is to demonstrate that the complaints have no morally universal application. Despicable actions by Ukraine are given a carte blanche. I find it bizarre that people hold it up as some sort of beacon of liberal democracy.

>Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression.

So the ends justify the means? Anyone who feels they are "fending off aggression" can kill civilians with carbombs and fatally abuse American citizens in their prisons? That's your position?

>I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda

Are you saying that NPR and the Helsinki Times are Russian propaganda outlets? That strikes me as completely irrational, but nevertheless a very common viewpoint among European warhawks. It's no surprise that Europe wasn't invited to the peace talks in Saudi Arabia.

  > Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO.

There was never such a deal. Quite the opposite: Russia and the US reiterated in several agreements a commitment to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, including the right to freely choose allies. This traces back to the 1975 Helsinki Conference, where representatives of all European countries agreed on common principles for security and cooperation in Europe, which are often referenced in later treaties.

Key documents:

* Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Helsinki_Final_Act

* Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1994): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi...

* Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (1997): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

* Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997): https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

There’s plenty of record that those promises were made to the Russians during the USSR dissolution discussions: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...

> In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Whether they were written down and signed is nowhere near as relevant as whether they were actually promised. The word of the counterparty is what makes and enforces a diplomatic deal, not some piece of paper.

Actually, there is no record of that. None whatsoever.

All top Soviets have refuted this. When the German ZDF channel asked Gorbachev about it in 2014 when Russia used this as a pretext for invading Crimea, he directly called it a myth on camera. So did his minister of defense Yazov and minister of foreign affairs Shevardnadze.

Gorbachev even explained that claims of such promise make no sense. Elected leaders of democracies cannot promise what their successors will or will not do. Voters set the direction. Trump is not bound by what Biden, Obama, Bush or Clinton allegedly promised someone in private decades ago. "Had we had an agreement, we would have written it down", he summed it up.

Shevardnadze went further and explained how this myth misrepresents the actual talks they held in 1990 regarding German reunification. The talks were about placement of foreign troops in East Germany before the Soviet forces had left East Germany. They agreed that only West German Bundeswehr would enter East Germany and take command alone to avoid getting multinational foreign NATO forces intermixed with Soviet forces. This was to prevent any potential misunderstandings that could spiral out of control during the handover. Germans upheld their part and everything went as they had agreed.

Shevardnadze said that during his tenure (1985-1991), the question of Eastern Europe joining NATO was not discussed even once with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact countries, or in the communist party circles in Moscow. Why would they discuss it if they didn't expect Warsaw Pact to dissolve? It came as a surprise. Nobody expected that the USSR itself would disintegrate, and parts of it would declare independence and join NATO.

Gorbachev, Yazov and Shevardnadze have passed away, but Shevardnadze's successor who was in charge of Russian foreign affairs from 1990 to 1996 is still around and active on social media. If you're not convinced, you can contact him directly and let him explain this myth personally: https://x.com/andreivkozyrev/ Putin's senior advisor from 2000 to 2005, who departed over disagreements with Putin's increasingly authoritarian style, is also active and recently published a video where he tears the myth apart (in Russian, sadly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFCNwGjko54

This myth is rather unique because three different generations of officials have refuted it: the Soviet representatives (late 1980s / early 1990s), people from Yeltsin's tenure (1990s), and people from early Putin's admin (early 2000s). Rarely do myths get so strongly refuted. No paper trail exist either. Western countries make a huge military commitment, but it doesn't get mentioned anywhere in internal Soviet meeting notes, private diaries, or other sources? That's hard to believe.

I find this myth a very good subject for a case study of a hoax. It is internally coherent and derived from an actual fact (the talks about German reunification), but doesn't connect to anything else. It floats around in isolation.

If the only weapon a country has is nukes, would you attack them, knowing that their only possible (and pretty much guaranteed) retaliation is nukes?

Think about it. Would you be willing to end the world if your neighboring country just took one town? How about a city? A region? Countries need more than nukes to defend themselves because it's not credible or sensible to threaten to end the world over what could be just a border dispute.

its not a end of world scenario until you get to superpower vs superpower even then the southern hemisphere would probably hold up fairly well if Russia and NATO went all out.

If you like you can modify the calculus to 'destroy and poison the vast majority of our cities and people' and the calculus holds. Countries need non-nuclear deterrence.

On their own ground, deep in the heart of their most populated cities, using their own civilian aircraft, knowing they're unlikely to destroy their own cities and believing that your vision of God is on your side .. sure.

As rhetorical questions go, that one's not great.

Nukes only deter your enemies from doing something that you are willing to end the world over. They are useless for everything else.

and wars can be led in such ways that it never seems like the enemy is attacking the thing over which you would be willing to end the world. aka salami tactics

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang&pp=ygUOc2FsYW1pIHR...

would you invade your neighbor if it meant they would nuke you capital and largest population centers. its called mutually assured destruction and its what got us through the cold war alive neither side would face the other head on as they both would be turned to molten slag a few minutes latter you just make clear you have low bar to initiate the Samson option.

as long a they believe you would nuke them for taking a single town they wont do it, so you won't have to.

Ukraine has invaded Russia and they haven't used their nukes.

The list of wars that countries with nuclear weapons have lost against countries without nuclear weapons is pretty much all the wars those countries have list since 1945. It's a very long list.

Nobody can use Nuclear bombs without serious repercussions.

Putin considered using new, smaller tactical nukes on Ukraine and that set off huge international opposition. The mere mention of nukes is extremely counter productive to whatever a state is trying to accomplish.

By some estimates Israel dropped 4 Hiroshimas worth of explosives on Gaza.

https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction...

The US dropped far more destruction on Bagdad in 2003 than on Hiroshima.

Modern conventional bombing is far more effective and just as hideous.

I think governments are afraid of nukes not because of the destructive power. Nukes are the only weapons that put the actual people in charge in danger, not just the civilians or the military. People in charge are afraid for their lives, not for the people they are supposed to protect.

It’s a simplisic view, I know.

I don’t find it simplistic, but realistic. Their asses are pretty safe and they can play their soldier games from the deep bunkers until the atom starts speaking. People in charge are rarely heroes and everything revolves around their safety, by design.

The senators and president will be OK, they have plans to evac to a huge bunker with everything they need. I don't know about you but I don't seem to have a taxpayer funded mega bunker.

For some definition of OK. It would be a big negative change to their lifestyles even if they're still alive.

Also, it assumes they can get to those locations in time from wherever they happen to be.

A lot of their families and friends are not going to be in the bunkers.

They'll have no one left to pander to.

What type of people are neither citizens or the military?