> Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[17] In the Ukrainian version of the document, the wording "security guarantees" was used though.[19]
Even NATO article 5, I'd expect if Russia rolls into Lithuania Trump would ignore it.
From now on anything short of "Can I press the red button myself?" will not cut the mustard.
USA could before this war started (because they publicly on camera warned about invasion days before) tell Putin that in case of invasion they believe they cannot fullfill contract commitment so in this situation the contract would be void and they would have to return few old nukes to Ukraine. This would be enough deterrent and fair to justify.
The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?
The U.S. instead provided a security "assurance" which was understood to mean a level of support short of U.S. troops on the ground. And in fact that is what the U.S. has been providing: intelligence and material, but no U.S. forces.
In other words, the level of support has been commensurate with the agreement signed. Until today, apparently.
Ultimately it comes down to trust. And the current US administration is doing its best to destroy trust built up over the last 80 years.
That being said, the US still has not broken any agreement, binding or non-binding. So your point is somewhat beside the point.
> Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.
Still - guess you have to check the small print.
The words you quoted came out of Yeltsin's mouth, not Clintons:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
Also, that was not any form of an agreement, it was just words in a meeting. Nobody signed, it was not ratified with US congress as a treaty.
If you take that as binding then all the verbal commitments made to Russia that NATO won't expand eastwards should also have been binding, and they were broken first. I know you will get angry that I mention it, but it's a fact.
Security guarantees would at minimum require a treaty ratified by congress in US, something which I don't think is on the table any more at all.
This happens probably 100x more than rolling up with warships.
When it mattered? Yes. When it was against its own interest? Almost never, just like every other great power.
Also in matters of security they did a good job between 1945 and 2014 of keeping peace in Europe and stopping Russia running amok which was not that easy in Stalin's day.
1) They could reduce and rate limit lend lease to Soviet similar like they rate limited to Ukraine so buy themself more time until nuke is ready and then drop one on Dresden or Berlin (Berlin capitulated in May and they had first nuke in July so just few months later). After that probably didn't had nuke Japan. Also Poland and other eastern countries maybe wouldn't be a puppet state because Stalin lied to them and they would be under influence of US and Soviet Union would be weaker.
2) If they didn't have russian spy in their manhattan project then maybe russia wouldn't have nukes or had much much later.
3) If their didn't listen to british and US didn't overturn Mossadegh (instead of negotiating oil deal) then they wouldn't have maybe such a big mess in Iran and middle east now.
4) If the put some leash on Wall Street and their corporations then maybe they wouldn't let China to outcompete them so easily and now wouldn't have to worry about their own economical dominance.
5) If they would upfront told russian they will return nuke to Ukraine in case invasion because of broken contract commitment then they wouldn't have to worry about current mess in Europe.
6) Not much familiar with the whole history of Afganistan but still wondering what and how badly they US screwed that Afghans that were fighting with Soviet Union with aid of US turned agains them.
The US nuclear umbrella was not charity, contrary what some in the US appear to believe. It was and is a pure power play.
Another little tidbit that is not generally well-known is that the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) actually requires the current nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons...eventually.
The US gave/gives something that is fairly easy for it to provide, and valuable to the other side.
In return the US receives something that is of great value to it and fairly easy for the other side to provide (as long as the US keeps its side of the bargain).
If US security guarantees turn out to be worthless, you will see a lot more nuclear powers as well as a drastic increase in conventional capabilities.
The US will then be one power among many, rather than a mostly unchallenged superpower.
What did the US receive in return for this? Gratitude isn't worth much.
With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands shouldn't start development of nuclear weapons again.
This discussion is already looming in Germany, especially now that Elon Musk openly wants the US to leave NATO. There is a standing offer by Macron for Germany to go under French nuclear protection. The UK also appears to be more than willing to fill in the nuclear vacuum left by the US. If things continue the path of the last 2-3 weeks, I am sure that at some point there will be a discussion about whether Germany should prepare to be able to at least build nuclear weapons quickly.
I have a feeling that Canada has similar thoughts. I wonder what would happen if they started developing nuclear weapons. The US president already announced he would make Canada the 51st state, and around 25% of Canadians saw the US as an enemy country 2 weeks ago [0]
Strategically, it does not make any sense to me. I am pretty sure that the Russians are just as confused. I wonder if there is a historic precedent of a country giving up a functioning empire voluntarily, without any internal or external pressure to do so.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/canada-us-relations-enemy-poll-tari...
And also, inexplicably, via (formerly) publicly viewable Chegg flashcards (???): https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos...
This is one reason Britain and France are out front right now on matters of European security.
It's too late to cancel now, but I guess in the future we will have to reconsider the true value of these bombs and airplanes. Once we really need them, US might "force us into peace".
Taiwan South Korea Japan Germany Sweden Italy UK (not counting trident) Ukraine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_prog...
Who's comparing Russia's economy to Italy's? Apparently Lindsay Graham did in 2014. CNN in 2022.
I like this article because it made me think about Russia and it's economy in a way that I didn't fully appreciate before. The article calls out an argument that compares Russia's economy to Italy's economy, using nominal GDP as a measurement. This is supposed to be a Western attempt to brush off Russia as a small(er) player than it really is, but that is a skewed perspective. The use of nominal GDP, especially in times of conflict (and war), does not fully encompass all of the resources that a country is capable of summoning and utilizing. Russia's oil and gas resources, as well as production in wheat, corn, and other earth metals provides it with "substantial leverage" on international markets. Furthermore, when the measurement used to compare the GDP is purchasing power parity (PPP), Russia's economy is more like that of Germany, than Italy. Taken together, the PPP and Russia's domestic production capability, and it seems to make sense why Russia's economy has not completely faltered in the face of sanctions imposed by the West. Could we say the same for Italy? Or even Germany?So all though, CNN is not wrong to make the claim that Russia's economy is equivalent to Italy's in nominal GDP, that comparison fails to take into account the economics of reality. And that's the very definition of propaganda.
What does exactly Russia produces ? Most of GDP of Russia comes from export of natural resources [1]. This is by design: raw material extraction can be managed even by corrupt friends of the government even with a lot of "inefficiencies"; meanwhile higher level production is left to languish on purpose since it would be a potential vector for others to gain wealth and power (most of the oil infrastructure in Russia is serviced by western tools, for example).
Up to a few years ago I would have added weapons to the list, but it seems to me that they can't produce quality weapons anymore, there are very few moderns Russian weapons in use in Ukraine, for example.
Russia's strength is not its own economy, which is a total mess.
Putin, Trump, Russians, Americans... are just doing their thing. Can't really be mad about that. I always thought there will never be another war in Europe, because (1) nobody's dumb enough to die for a bunch of crooks and (2) cannon fodder is not a great use of people anyway. Oh well, turns out propaganda is one hell of a drug (on both ends of the political spectrum).
Meanwhile... my hotel room in Shenzhen could change window tint with a voice command and automatically detect the language. My Indian colleague's 12yo kid wants to be an astronaut and has a better investment portfolio than me. It is so over.. people have no idea. Like, not tomorrow, not in five years, but certainly by the end of the century. Vivek Ramaswamy tried to give MAGA a hint, but got cancelled for it. (Cancel culture was supposed to be a left-wing postmodern thing btw. Oopsie! Let's pretend we're surprised, ok?)
Trump appears to only think in short term transactional way - no long term strategy.
Did you write this, review it, then post it as if that's a bad thing? wow
edit: grammar
The sentiment I’ve seen increasingly that goes something like “but they’re freeloading” completely misses the nuance of decades of foreign policy and why the interdependence between allies and enemies alike has maintained relative peace.
If you’re worried about world wars, you should worry about the US undermining itself.
As far as technology goes, putting a hard embargo on US exports of AI-supporting hardware is only going to further accelerate China's push to develop home-grown alternatives, and in a world where the US is isolating itself and new alliances are forming, such as China-Russia, this means that future US attempts to prevent cutting edge technology getting into the hands of others will be increasingly futile since these non-US alliances will support each other.
An isolated USA is in the end a weaker USA.
I have special beef with Kurzweil’s life expectancy BS because he misrepresents facts in his essays. His famous “Law of Accelerating Returns” essay has an incredible number of misleading plots and conflated arguments, but the life expectancy graph at the bottom is a pure lie, and Kurzweil knows it. It conflates life expectancy with longevity, and it left out data from before 1840 and from between 1940 and 2000 that he already had. If you include that known data and explain what longevity is, it ruins his plot and his argument, but he wanted to pretend there’s a trend that doesn’t exist so he intentionally left it out. https://www.writingsbyraykurzweil.com/the-law-of-acceleratin...
That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is supposedly playing with WW3. If anything, by not making nukes Zelensky shows an, unreasonable at my opinion, restraint here.
The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.
Ukraine isn’t in and probably never will be in a position to credibly threaten a MAD second strike to Russia. From number of warheads to strategic depth, it’s not a realistic option. Instead it would seek to credibly threaten limited nuclear war using tactical nukes.
This would only make sense with European support. And at that point, it almost makes more sense for Europe to directly enter the fight. (Or give Kyiv the nuclear weapons.)
Both sides have to agree to the "limited" part for it to stay limited. Mind you, threats of nuclear escalation are routine from Russia.
It’s more that each side has to moderate itself. That’s true if both have nukes or just one. And it’s much easier to moderate oneself when it’s in one’s own interest, e.g. to avoid getting nuked.
If you mean a scenario where Russia uses its entire arsenal at once, I think I would agree — but that would leave them extremely vulnerable to everyone else. Even without that, between the shared border and the nuclear reactors, lots of fallout would end up in Russian soil, in their farms and food.
For the size of nuclear strike that would allow Russia to not hurt itself directly by the attack:
If Ukraine found a some still-functioning nukes lying around in a formerly-locked Soviet-era cupboard, what would stop them from being so already with current weapons?
Russia doesn't seem to be able to prevent conventional strikes by Ukrainian forces. Is that only due to US assistance with materiel and intel?
They can always just stop? It's not as if Ukranian tanks are at the gates of Moscow, it's more like the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Or the previous USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan.
It is unclear whether the UK or France would threaten a retaliatory strike in case of nuclear weapons use not against their own territory. It doesn't seem likely, but if there's one thing Putin is very cautious about it's his own personal survival.
They can, but that is what I am wondering about. Will a desperate Putin think he can get away with a nuclear first strike on Ukraine? If he thinks he can, why stop?
Considering that the Russian government continues to sell this invasion to its people as a "special military operation" and bans calling it a "war", what impact would using nuclear weapons have on the internal politics of Russia?
I also invite you to consider the converse: Ukraine is already asking if it made a mistake by giving up its nuclear weapons, and I have heard plausible claims they could construct a nuclear device within a few months… a few months ago.
The US withdrawing all support, may well result in Ukraine making their own nuclear weapons — and attacking Russia with them to make the point, given that Putin seems to have great difficulty understanding that the Ukrainian people don't want him.
May be you mean uranium enrichment? When plutonium is already available, like in Ukraine, it is completely different game - you just need to chemically separate plutonium from the spent fuel. That is the only noticeable expense - needs facility with safety protections, etc. Or just a few people willing to die for the Motherland. The rest is putting charges around the plutonium sphere and timing them correctly with electronics. That is basically all. Couple weeks really :)
Which is fortunate, because it's also quite easy to make plutonium by exposing (natural or depleted) uranium to neutrons…
They need to develop bunker busters though.
Btw, according to the Russian nuclear doctrine nukes can be used when the country is invaded even with just conventional weapons if the invasion presents severe threat to the country. Thus according to the Russian nuclear doctrine Ukraine is allowed to use nukes.
Let's not forget these folks have their self preservation in first order, the population is just a means for their survival.
That's why it's imperative for Ukraine to have bunker busters, like gravity bombs, because the first strike would need to be where the leadership is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
The GDP ranking involves all countries. So whose propaganda is it, and what’s the motivation? If it’s technically accurate that Italy ranks above Russia by GDP then what’s the basis for calling it propaganda? Typically propaganda is nationalistic and spreading false information within a country and being used to justify a country’s moves against another, not international verifiable facts that are technically accurate and not being used to justify some action.
GDP is a single summary metric, not a comprehensive analysis. It’s entirely possible that Russia’s and Italy’s rankings could swap when using a different economic metric. That certainly doesn’t mean GDP rankings are propaganda.
Now you obviously can argue that there should be other considerations, but that is your argument and interpretation, not the obvious truth that the actual data needs to be judged against.
Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views".
> Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views".
It says "propagation of doctrine" and facts can be used to propagate a doctrine.
Edit:
Here's a definition from Wikipedia:
> NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs defines propaganda as "information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Definitions
Does that sound like the information has to be false to be propaganda?
What does that mean?
Claim is correct => Claim is not propaganda
Also means
Claim is propaganda => Claim can not be correct
Anders Puck Nielsen just published an interesting video on this topic [How does Russia's military spending compare to Europe?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxq-TvgNCBU)
The Russian economy cannot produce half of what Germany or Japan can. That means they have to import it. Which means the truth is somewhere between PPP and nominal GDP. (The simplest statistical treatment is to PPP domestic industries and nominalise imports, but that’s really an analysis one must do oneself as the assumptions are too numerous for convincing someone who’s already concluded adversely.)
If they could keep selling in rubles without a fall in exports or prices then the month's contribution to GDP was 15% higher than the previous one. That doesn't seem very confusing.
You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision.
For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear weapons on hold per U.S. request.