News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

[Rigby5]

That is BS.



That does not say that Russia would take back their armaments - only that Russia would be given them.

That does not mean the nukes were "given" to them, but simply recognized the reality that they were and aways are Russian property.
So Russia removing them from the Ukraine was a gift to both the US and the Ukraine.
It reduced Russia's retaliatory response capability, so was a sacrifice by Russia.
So it was the Ukraine and the US who owed Russia for this act of kindness.
And instead, what the US and Ukraine did was try to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol, murder 30k ethnic Russian Ukrainian natives, try to put NATO nukes on Russia's border, and cut off all communications with Moscow.

 

[sear]

"The fact these Russian nuclear devices were IN the Ukraine, does not mean that the Ukraine made, owned, controlled, or had launch codes for them ever.
They were always built by, owned, controlled, and removed by Russia." R5 #276
"That does not mean the nukes were "given" to them, but simply recognized the reality that they were and aways are Russian property." R5 #281

Even if true it's immaterial, and there appears to be substantial factual error in these assertions.

Your assertion is they were "Russian".
The global Cold War consensus was they were "Soviet" missiles, and that Ukraine had been subject to Soviet totalitarian rule.

UNQUESTIONABLY some within Ukraine might have wanted Soviet membership at that time.
Likely some, perhaps most within Ukraine did not.

During the GHWB administration when "The Wall" fell, and the Cold War ended, those former Soviet missiles were in the CUSTODY of Ukraine.
Your oft' repeated assertions about ownership, control, & launch codes may or may not be true. For sake of decisive refutation we can assume them true.

Even if true, so what?
Ukraine had CUSTODY *, and while Ukraine on that very day using those former Soviet missiles in war to attack enemies outside Ukraine borders would have been difficult without the launch code you mentioned,
that is hardly an insurmountable technical problem.

There are numerous ways Ukraine could have solved that problem.
- Ukraine could have deciphered the codes.
- Ukraine could have bought the codes, from a hacker, or a former Soviet official, or someone else.
- The entire launch code interlock could have simply been bypassed with a vodka-swilling drunk with a solder gun.

BOTTOM LINE:
a) Ukraine had CUSTODY
b) Ukraine reportedly forfeited custody for international assurances, which if reports are true, have since been flagrantly violated.

* Think it through.
You think the Kremlin could have sent Russian commandos to repatriate former Soviet missiles from Ukraine to Russia?
Not likely.
And the risk of any such attempt resulting in nuking Moscow would be a substantial deterrent to even attempting it, let alone succeeding at it.

 

[Rigby5]

Even if true it's immaterial, and there appears to be substantial factual error in these assertions.

Your assertion is they were "Russian".
The global Cold War consensus was they were "Soviet" missiles, and that Ukraine had been subject to Soviet totalitarian rule.

UNQUESTIONABLY some within Ukraine might have wanted Soviet membership at that time.
Likely some, perhaps most within Ukraine did not.

During the GHWB administration when "The Wall" fell, and the Cold War ended, those former Soviet missiles were in the CUSTODY of Ukraine.
Your oft' repeated assertions about ownership, control, & launch codes may or may not be true. For sake of decisive refutation we can assume them true.

Even if true, so what?
Ukraine had CUSTODY *, and while Ukraine on that very day using those former Soviet missiles in war to attack enemies outside Ukraine borders would have been difficult without the launch code you mentioned,
that is hardly an insurmountable technical problem.

There are numerous ways Ukraine could have solved that problem.
- Ukraine could have deciphered the codes.
- Ukraine could have bought the codes, from a hacker, or a former Soviet official, or someone else.
- The entire launch code interlock could have simply been bypassed with a vodka-swilling drunk with a solder gun.

BOTTOM LINE:
a) Ukraine had CUSTODY
b) Ukraine reportedly forfeited custody for international assurances, which if reports are true, have since been flagrantly violated.

* Think it through.
You think the Kremlin could have sent Russian commandos to repatriate former Soviet missiles from Ukraine to Russia?
Not likely.
And the risk of any such attempt resulting in nuking Moscow would be a substantial deterrent to even attempting it, let alone succeeding at it.

No, the Ukraine NEVER had "custody".
The USSR was always pretty much fake, and it was actually always Russia in charge.
And the guards, personnel, etc. at these missile sites in the Ukraine were always only Russian.

Launch codes can not just be deciphered, bypassed, or bought because they are data to the targeting algorithm, and the entire targeting algorithm has to be fully understood.

Think about it.
When the US puts missile silos in Montana, it is manned by the state of Montana?

The launch destinations of all missiles can not be fixed, since it could be Russia, China, Korea, India, or even aliens that need to be targeted.
So launch codes have to include the targeting destination of the launch, in a proprietary format.

 

[Shiftless2]

That does not mean the nukes were "given" to them, but simply recognized the reality that they were and aways are Russian property.

It does not say that those nukes were Russian property.

 

[Rigby5]

It does not say that those nukes were Russian property.

Obviously they were.
The Ukraine never wanted or had any say in the construction, installation, maintenance, or control of those nukes.
All they did was make the Ukraine targeted by US missiles.

Does Montana want nuke sites there?
Of course not.
They are there in Montana so that it would be harder for anyone to take out DC.

 

[Shiftless2]

Ukraine Has Passed A Point of No Return

Kyiv is tired. For most of the four years since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the capital city has insisted on maintaining or restoring its usual vibrant urban life. Theaters have been operating, as have art galleries and...

This article appeared in the New York Times - the original is behind a firewall but you can read it here (click on the link)

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

 

[Rigby5]

Ukraine Has Passed A Point of No Return

Kyiv is tired. For most of the four years since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the capital city has insisted on maintaining or restoring its usual vibrant urban life. Theaters have been operating, as have art galleries and...

This article appeared in the New York Times - the original is behind a firewall but you can read it here (click on the link)

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

The government that took over Kyiv is not really Ukrainian.
Around 1700, the Old Polish Empire that had tried to invade Russia was defeated, but the Russians allowed them to remain in the western half of the Ukraine.
And it is the ancestors of those invaders who Hunter Biden bribed into the 2024 US takeover.

 

[sear]

European capitals push back as Ukraine seeks fast-track EU membership​

By Lili Bayer, Andrew Gray and Daniel Flynn / March 3, 20266:09 AM GMT-5

BRUSSELS, March 3 (Reuters) - Ukraine’s push for a fast track into the European Union as part of any peace deal has hit stiff resistance from EU governments, who do not want to open the Pandora’s box of problems that they fear a quick accession would ‌unleash.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wants a 2027 date to join the EU as part of a settlement to end Russia's war, hoping this would anchor his country in Europe’s main political club and offer a path to greater prosperity, security and stability.

A clear route into the EU could be vital for Zelenskiy in selling any peace settlement to Ukrainians, particularly if - as is widely expected - Ukraine does not regain control of all of its territory or join the NATO military alliance, analysts say.
But EU governments - including heavyweights France and Germany - have privately voiced scepticism about a mooted reform of the accession process that would shorten Ukraine's path to membership, diplomats say. Reuters spoke with eight European diplomats and officials, and many pointed to unease among EU capitals about the idea.
Among their ⁠concerns is that Ukraine and others would not press on with reforms, such as cracking down on corruption, if it has already been granted EU membership.

European capitals push back as Ukraine seeks fast-track EU membership

Ukraine’s push for a fast track into the European Union as part of any peace deal has hit stiff resistance from EU governments, who do not want to open the Pandora’s box of problems that they fear a quick accession would ‌unleash.

www.reuters.com

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Is there a plausible interpretation here, to present E.U. reluctance as self-defeating?

E.U. members want European stability. Right?

Doesn't choking off Russian military expansion help promote European stability?
Even at the risk of expanded E.U. € markets?

EU !
If you want an omelette, you have to break eggs.

 

[Rigby5]

European capitals push back as Ukraine seeks fast-track EU membership​

By Lili Bayer, Andrew Gray and Daniel Flynn / March 3, 20266:09 AM GMT-5

BRUSSELS, March 3 (Reuters) - Ukraine’s push for a fast track into the European Union as part of any peace deal has hit stiff resistance from EU governments, who do not want to open the Pandora’s box of problems that they fear a quick accession would ‌unleash.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wants a 2027 date to join the EU as part of a settlement to end Russia's war, hoping this would anchor his country in Europe’s main political club and offer a path to greater prosperity, security and stability.

A clear route into the EU could be vital for Zelenskiy in selling any peace settlement to Ukrainians, particularly if - as is widely expected - Ukraine does not regain control of all of its territory or join the NATO military alliance, analysts say.
But EU governments - including heavyweights France and Germany - have privately voiced scepticism about a mooted reform of the accession process that would shorten Ukraine's path to membership, diplomats say. Reuters spoke with eight European diplomats and officials, and many pointed to unease among EU capitals about the idea.
Among their ⁠concerns is that Ukraine and others would not press on with reforms, such as cracking down on corruption, if it has already been granted EU membership.

European capitals push back as Ukraine seeks fast-track EU membership

Ukraine’s push for a fast track into the European Union as part of any peace deal has hit stiff resistance from EU governments, who do not want to open the Pandora’s box of problems that they fear a quick accession would ‌unleash.

www.reuters.com

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Is there a plausible interpretation here, to present E.U. reluctance as self-defeating?

E.U. members want European stability. Right?

Doesn't choking off Russian military expansion help promote European stability?
Even at the risk of expanded E.U. € markets?

EU !
If you want an omelette, you have to break eggs.

It would violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum if the Ukraine were ever to join the EU or NATO.
It is bad enough that the Ukraine violated treaties and tried to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol.
No EU members would ever be dumb enough to allow it since that would be a death sentence for their country as well.

 

[sear]

"It would violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum if the Ukraine were ever to join the EU or NATO." R5 #289

Oh?
Are those that would be in violation signatories?

What is the exact wording of the clause(s) that would be violated?

 

[Rigby5]

Oh?
Are those that would be in violation signatories?

What is the exact wording of the clause(s) that would be violated?

The former members of the Soviet Union all signed treaties ensuring they would never join an alliance hostile to Russia in 1992.
But the Ukraine in particular signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 that ensured that in return for Russia removing its nukes from the Ukraine, that the Ukraine would once again never join an alliance hostile to Russia.
And since both NATO and the EU are hostile to Russia, the Ukraine can not be allowed to join either.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[sear]

"The former members of the Soviet Union all signed treaties ensuring they would never join an alliance hostile to Russia in 1992." R5 #291

I'm neither expert nor experienced in this category of international law. BUT !
If it's a difference of opinion that straddles a recognized international border, then it becomes a matter of international law, right?

Is there rational reason to think international law should not mirror laws within nations?
If I understand law as it is practiced in my nation, if a contract is signed under duress it is not legally binding.
If any '94 Budapest Memorandum signatories signed under duress, - OR -
had reason to belief their refusal to consent would result in reprisal,
then that contract can't be enforced against them. Right?

AND
Ukraine has not received the Ukrainian security assured them, Ukrainian borders would be respected. [thank you S2 #292]
In exchange Ukraine surrendered Soviet nukes? & the memorandum was signed?

Ukraine not merely betrayed.
The resultant casualty toll there, a bloodbath. Rational reason to not rely on other nations for national security.

Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War
include six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, 14,200–14,400 military and civilian deaths during the War in Donbas,
and between 400,000 and 1.5 million estimated casualties (killed and wounded) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine from 24 February 2022 to November 2025.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If international contract, "Memorandum" is not enforceable for Ukraine's benefit, it cannot be enforced for Ukraine's detriment. Right?

"But the Ukraine in particular signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 that ensured that in return for Russia removing its nukes from the Ukraine, that the Ukraine would once again never join an alliance hostile to Russia.
And since both NATO and the EU are hostile to Russia, the Ukraine can not be allowed to join either." R5 #291

If Ukraine didn't have internationally acknowledged legitimate need for Ukrainian military self-protection from Russian military aggression,
it has now. Right?

The notion that prior treaty obligation compels a nation to receive military invasion without viable means to preserve its own sovereignty,
sovereignty as it existed when the agreement was signed, is absurd.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 4240

View attachment 4244

View attachment 4241

That is a propaganda spin.
The reality is that the Ukraine never had nuclear technology, had an agricultural economy, and had nothing at all to do with the nukes Russia had installed in the Ukraine.
If the nukes in the Ukraine were owned and operated by the Ukraine, then they would have just sold them.
But they needed to negotiate the Budapest Memorandum because those nukes were owned and operated by Russia instead, and the Ukraine had to convince Russia to remove them.
That is because Russia was the one making the sacrifice by having them gone.
The Ukraine got an advantage from them being gone, because then they were no longer targeted by the US.
But Russia then had a smaller nuclear retaliatory defense, that is now easier to take out.

So the claim, "the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons" is down right silly.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm neither expert nor experienced in this category of international law. BUT !
If it's a difference of opinion that straddles a recognized international border, then it becomes a matter of international law, right?

Is there rational reason to think international law should not mirror laws within nations?
If I understand law as it is practiced in my nation, if a contract is signed under duress it is not legally binding.
If any '94 Budapest Memorandum signatories signed under duress, - OR -
had reason to belief their refusal to consent would result in reprisal,
then that contract can't be enforced against them. Right?

AND
Ukraine has not received the Ukrainian security assured them, Ukrainian borders would be respected. [thank you S2 #292]
In exchange Ukraine surrendered Soviet nukes? & the memorandum was signed?

Ukraine not merely betrayed.
The resultant casualty toll there, a bloodbath. Rational reason to not rely on other nations for national security.

Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War
include six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, 14,200–14,400 military and civilian deaths during the War in Donbas,
and between 400,000 and 1.5 million estimated casualties (killed and wounded) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine from 24 February 2022 to November 2025.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If international contract, "Memorandum" is not enforceable for Ukraine's benefit, it cannot be enforced for Ukraine's detriment. Right?


If Ukraine didn't have internationally acknowledged legitimate need for Ukrainian military self-protection from Russian military aggression,
it has now. Right?

The notion that prior treaty obligation compels a nation to receive military invasion without viable means to preserve its own sovereignty,
sovereignty as it existed when the agreement was signed, is absurd.

The Ukraine has no historic existence.
The Ukraine is the "contested area" between the Old Polish Empire and Russia, from when the attempt by Poland to invade Russia was defeated around 1700.
The first time anyone considered creating an independent country of the Ukraine was by the flawed Treaty of Versailles after WWI.
But the Treaty of Versailles was ridiculous and ignored.
The creation of the USSR immediately obliterated the idea of an independent country of the Ukraine.

There is nothing wrong with the 1992 treaty creating the independent country of the Ukraine or the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
But it is the Ukraine who is in violation.
The 3 main points were all violated by the Ukraine, when they tried to stop Russian use of Sevastopol, allowed the racist Azov Battalion to murder over 30k ethnic Russian natives of the Ukraine, and tried to join NATO and the EU.
And those 3 treaty violations basically make the Ukraine null and void as an independent country, reverting the Ukraine back to a province of Russia, as it was before 1920.

Anyone attempting to enforce international law would have to punish the Ukraine as the offender.

 

[sear]

"... the claim, "the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons" is down right silly." R5 #294

The Soviets had military weapons during the Cold War.
Those military weapons included missiles. Right?
Do you think the Soviets concentrated their missiles all into one convenient geographical area called "Russia"? To reward a preemptive strike by NATO?

- OR -

Do you suppose the Soviets might have disbursed their military assets on land and at sea, to discourage preemptive strike?

Ever hear of the "Cuban missile crisis"?
The Soviets shipped missiles to Cuba.
The Kennedy administration caught them, and negotiated with the Soviets to have those missiles removed from Cuba.

So you think Cuba was OK, but Ukraine, within the Soviet sphere, behind the "Iron curtain" was not?

 

[Rigby5]

The Soviets had military weapons during the Cold War.
Those military weapons included missiles. Right?
Do you think the Soviets concentrated their missiles all into one convenient geographical area called "Russia"? To reward a preemptive strike by NATO?

- OR -

Do you suppose the Soviets might have disbursed their military assets on land and at sea, to discourage preemptive strike?

Ever hear of the "Cuban missile crisis"?
The Soviets shipped missiles to Cuba.
The Kennedy administration caught them, and negotiated with the Soviets to have those missiles removed from Cuba.

So you think Cuba was OK, but Ukraine, within the Soviet sphere, behind the "Iron curtain" was not?

The nukes Russia put in Cuba were so short range that they really were no significant threat to the US.
They could just barely reach Florida.

But the point of the Russians putting nukes in Cuba was legitimate partly because of our Bay of Pigs aggression, but also because of our Triton missiles in Turkey.
The solution was not just Russia removing the nukes from Cuba, but the US also removed our missiles from Turkey.

I do not know why Russia removed their missiles from the Ukraine.
The Ukraine was part of their legitimate defense grid.
I think Russia was being naive to think the US would not then attempt to put NATO nukes in the Ukraine, aimed at Russia.
Which we almost immediately started working on.
It took us only 2 decades to achieve the Maidan Coup in 2014, and only another decade to get the Ukraine to try to join NATO.
Russia should have crushed the US surrogates back in 2014.
They never should have allow US agents a foothold on the border of Russia like that.

 

[sear]

"But the point of the Russians putting nukes in Cuba was legitimate partly because of our Bay of Pigs aggression, but also because of our Triton missiles in Turkey.
The solution was not just Russia removing the nukes from Cuba, but the US also removed our missiles from Turkey." R5 #297

What I've read of it has corroborated your point. BUT !
I was not aware of the U.S. missiles in Turkey issue until decades after JFK left the building.