Membership vital to ‘victory plan’, Volodymyr Zelensky tells EU summit, as he warns of need for powerful deterrent against Russia

Membership vital to ‘victory plan’, Volodymyr Zelensky tells EU summit, as he warns of need for powerful deterrent against Russia

  • Lemmynated@lemmy.zipOPEnglish
    843·
    1 day ago

    The world told them to get rid of their nukes and they would be safe. Not surprising they’re wanting them back.

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      371·
      1 day ago

      This is a bit nuanced and complicated. You’re right in spirit of course.

      Technically, those were the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union. After it broke up, operational control of these weapons remained in Moscow as per https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/

      So Ukraine had physical possession, but they couldn’t have turned them on from day 1 of independence. And if Ukraine had refused to return them, it seems it is an open question if they could have circumvented the security measures or not to gain control over them.

      Ironically, my understanding from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2015.1026091 is that part of the reason Ukraine agreed to give up those nukes was in return for having not only security assurances, but to have those assurances extended to Crimea. This can be viewed and exchanging the nukes for retaining Crimea.

      Considering what we know now… that might not have been the best deal. This almost has me asking, why not both? (Both NATO membership and nukes)

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        41·
        1 day ago

        yeah, at the moment nukes are needed in nato. however, other members, like france and the US can supply them, if necessary. hopefully it won’t be necessary tho

  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeEnglish
    4·
    19 hours ago

    Nukes didn’t stop them from counter-attacking onto Russian soil.

    By now, I’m somewhat convinced that we could have full scale war between NATO and Russia and nukes still wouldn’t be used.

  • LaLaLa@ani.socialEnglish
    252·
    1 day ago

    Zelensky’s not playing around, but nukes are way too extra. Time for NATO/EU to quit stalling and actually do something.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      11·
      23 hours ago

      That’s exactly the point?

      He isn’t threatening Russia with getting nuked, he’s threatening NATO with HAVING nukes.

      If Ukraine beats back Russia to the border, things can end. Ukraine can join NATO, Ukraine gets its security via NATO and Russia will be sore, but accept Ukraine doesn’t pose an existential threat. Peace and normalization can eventually return.

      If Ukraine can’t beat them back, and can’t get the external help it needs to do so, yeah they can build some nukes. They might have to use one to show they’re not fucking around. Suddenly Ukraine IS an actual threat to Russia. Suddenly this isn’t about prestige and empire building anymore. It might end the war but normalizing relations and the future of Europe is very unclear. It would make NATO membership impossible. This is worse for NATO than Russia taking Kyiv.

      Ukraine wins either way. Russia loses either way. But NATO loses if Ukraine gets the bomb.

  • hate2bme@lemmy.world
    107·
    1 day ago

    If one country has nukes, all should be allowed to develop them. Maybe everyone should get rid of them.