this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
395 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39102 readers
3470 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Pentagon has expressed no concern regarding the advance of Ukrainian forces in Russia's Kursk Oblast, the Pentagon's press service reports.

Source: European Pravda, citing Sabrina Singh, Deputy Spokesperson for the Pentagon

Details: "No, because at the end of the day, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereign territory that its neighbour invaded. So, if we want to de-escalate tensions, as we've said from the beginning, the best way to do that is Putin can make that decision today to withdraw troops from Ukraine," Singh stated, when asked about the potential escalation of tensions due to Ukrainian forces entering Kursk Oblast

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Samsonreturns@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You do know that Ukraine willingly dismantled its nuclear arsenal? And I would hardly call their country corruption-free, but that's a different topic altogether. I think this is why it is so important for NATO to be the backbone of the Ukrainian defense efforts, as they were the voices encouraging them to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 57 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ukraine willingly dismantled its nuclear arsenal

In exchange for assurances that Russia wouldn't invade them. They won't make that mistake again. And it's not just me, NATO and organizations around the world have vouched for Ukraine's continuing efforts to root out and remove corruption.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is the issue that at the time, Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal. Getting security agreements instead was a sensible thing to do, it just turns out that the ones they got weren't strong enough

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

And Russia does? At least they'd have the "what if one of them still works" card that the Russians are playing.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Theoretically yes, although that would mean less yachts for oligarchs, so maybe some maintenance might be neglected or skipped

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Not really, Russia spends about as much on its arsenal as the UK while having orders of magnitude more warheads to maintain. Either they have help from the magic nuclear maintenance faeries or only a small portion of their arsenal is still functional.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Russia's GDP and GDP per capita have both been a lot higher than Ukraine's in the entire post-Soviet period. Usually about two to three times higher per capita and five to ten times bigger overall. Post-Soviet Russia hasn't been particularly prosperous, but it has a large population and oil money. It was definitely much more able to pay for it than Ukraine.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All I'm saying is that if they kept some, they could maintain some ambiguity whether they were maintaining them or not, potentially deterring the current invasion. It's not like Russia has money to spare either, we're taking them at their word that they have a functioning nuclear arsenal.

With how the current invasion is going, I doubt that they know for certain. But let's be honest, that uncertainty is the only thing keeping US F-22s out of Moscow's skies right now.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree it would have been better for them with the benefit of hindsight. My point is more that the decision that they did make was a pretty rational one at the time

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I get that and I agree. Everyone thought Russia will do what's good for Russia, and not this.

[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Not only got rid of their nukes, but in agreement with Russia that that their territory would be respected.

The nukes were their protection from Russia, and Russia stabbed them in the back after they got rid of them. Russia used the "NATO expansion" excuse, among others, as a reason to invade when it was Europe who worked to de-nuke Ukraine in the first place.