He's just checking on his investment....
evac flight for agents after the election.
Gotta test the beds at the White House to make sure they're soft enough for Big Daddy Vlad.
Ensure they're pee-proof.
Daddy Vlad and mommy Elon?
NATO officials who fear a deal that could harm Kyiv and alter NATO’s eastern border dynamics.
And why do they think Ukraine would agree to such a deal?
Because Trump will cut all funding and equipment if they don't.
Didn't it land at one of the only airports with Trump's plane or is that just rumour?
Biden needs to transfer to Ukraine a nuke right now to provide some M.A.D. insurance. If he doesn't, I worry Trump will look the other way completely should Russia escalate with tactical ones or worse.
Edit: Guys, please educate yourselves on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory. The point is deterrence through mutual destruction, which effectively worked during the Cold War.
EDIT: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
Because Republicans with Trump gained full control of the US, effectively all geopolitical support is going to drop off for Ukraine over the next 4 years. It is imperative that Ukraine be given leverage ahead of this transition.
If nukes start flying we all lose.
Of course. That's why I advise we provide Ukraine with a nuke and warn Russia that if they try to utilize nukes against Ukraine, then Moscow will be targeted by Ukraine themselves.
Again: MAD Theory. Deterrence.
Edit: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
UK has stated that if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, there will be a symmetrical response.
Edit:
And a promise is basically all the defense Ukraine has, just like they were promised both non aggression from Russia, and protection from USA, when they gave up their nukes 20 years ago.
Promises are worth zilch, just like when Hitler promised Chamberlain peace. Some things never change, especially when dealing with crazy dictators.
One would hope, but those are mere promises. When the time comes, doing is far different than saying. If we're already committed that far and we already support Ukraine to those ends, then let's cut out the middle man and give Ukraine such missiles themselves where they may be utilized immediately without hesitation. And of course, that's a certainty Putin can be assured of.
I 100% agree, and as it is now, this is all the defense Ukraine has from a nuclear attack.
How do you think nukes work that one can just be provided to them? And how do you feel they will implement MAD with only a single nuke?
How do you think nukes work that one can just be provided to them?
How do you think nukes work that this is obstacle that cannot be overcome by two innovative powers?
Are you familiar with the Sentinel ICBM launched by vertical-erected launchers?
And how do you feel they will implement MAD with only a single nuke?
It's not black-and-white, but rather a gradient: One threatening Moscow is better than none; more is better than one.
Now let me ask you: Why (if this is indeed your belief) do you think such a proposed scenario invites more risk than the current scenario Ukraine is in now while unarmed? Moreover do you believe Russia would have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine did not adhere to the Budapest Memorandum?
I think putting a US nuclear weapon into another country's hands has the potential to make US defense much weaker. What if the weapon (and more importantly all of the training materials and intelligence regarding the system) fell into Russian hands?
I would not oppose Ukraine having its own nuclear program, but what you are proposing is a non-starter for more reasons than I can count.
We'll all burn together when we burn.
Funny you say that, I’m burning one right now 🌳
That's the point of MAD
MAD requires sane leadership and neither the US nor Russia are to be trusted with that.
Those nations already have nukes. 🤣
And you think Khrushchev was more sane than Putin? The guy who was putting nukes in Cuba?
I don’t have an opinion on krushchev, but I do know that putin needs to be a strong man to keep power.
You’re proving my point though - they already have nukes. Why does Ukraine need nukes? If things are going nuclear it’s all over in a few minutes anyway as whoever strikes first (US or Russia) will be retaliated against immediately by the other, and then everything ends for everyone except for the few unlucky survivors. Why stoke the fire and make that outcome even more likely?
If MAD is working then Ukraine doesn’t need nukes it’s got nuclear allies. If MAD isn’t working then we’re all gonna be fucked in the near future, we all lose and nobody, not even the billionaires in their bunkers, wins.
You’re proving my point though - they already have nukes.
Wut? No it doesn't - it supports the theory that MAD is "working" since nobody has launched any nukes. Why hasn't Putin nuked Ukraine? I thought Putin was insane right?
Why does Ukraine need nukes?
Because I doubt NATO would be wiling to retaliate on their behalf. Trump sure as fuck won't and Europe would be far to weak to do so IMHO.
Frankly I believe the way Russia "wins" this whole thing is to simply show Ukrainians that siding with "the west" was a bad idea. Once Trump withdraws US support the war will go very badly. Public opinion will turn on "the west" for abandoning them and towards Russia.
There are plenty of nuclear weapons close to Ukraine that can very easily and quickly be launched if whatever necessary scenario I can't come up with that would require a nuclear weapon happens.
The UK currently has 120 of their 225 nuclear weapons deployed and France currently has 290 of their 280 deployed and Putin is well aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
For the same exact reason that all those surrounding nations aren't committing their own forces to the defense of Ukraine is the exact same reason why providing Ukraine itself with a nuke as a deterrent to Russia's use is essential.
Yes, other nations surrounding Ukraine have nukes. However, the odds are much higher that should Russia use nukes on Ukraine that all the surrounding nations would furrow their eyebrows heavily and condemn the attacks but ultimately do nothing because they want to contain the damage to Ukraine. Chamberlains everywhere would simply reiterate, "This is a tragic day for the world, but we cannot risk a greater conflict." Meanwhile Tump, of course, would look the other way and seek to undermine any substantive NATO response at every turn.
To reemphasize my point that many seem to have missed: This is about giving the actual victim — Ukraine — agency to defend itself directly from a nuclear threat. I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.
I agree, but many are like:
Oh no 😱, that would be crossing a Russian read line! 🤮
Man I hate this argument, Russia only respect one thing, and that is strength. And Putin is insane, he is gambling with extremely high stakes, and has upped the stakes consistently for years now.
All the pearl clutching people are doing, is only helping Russia.
Exactly. I say fuck Putin's red line and give Ukraine nukes to deter Russia unilaterally.
If surrounding nations are unwilling to commit conventional ground forces or establish a No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine for risk of escalation, can we really count on them to respond effectively should tactical nukes or worse be used by Russia against Ukraine? I think not.
I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.
He will not be in power in perpetuity.
Perhaps not; however:
This is practically speaking only reinstating the Budapest Memorandum given Russia's failure to comply.
It is very probable he remains in power over the next 4 years, which are the most pivotal 4 years of Ukraine's future and most dire period for nuclear threat against them.
I don't think you are understanding my point. The next person to come to power in Ukraine might decide to use it proactively. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't get put back in.
Respectfully, I believe I do understand your point and I'll try to echo your side to verify that; but you may not be understanding mine.
What I believe your point is: If we give Ukraine nukes now, the future leadership could be volatile, thereby increasing the net-volatility of the region.
However, let's consider what I view as reasonable assumptions at the geopolitical level, both now and into the future:
If say, 4 years from now or whenever Zelenskyy (still overwhelmingly popular in Ukraine) steps down, the future leadership of Ukraine becomes volatile, then MAD theory still works symmetrically; after all, Russia clearly has many more nukes than Ukraine and that spells their destruction.
Practically-speaking, Ukraine geopolitical inertia has moved heavily toward the orbit of the West and its humanitarian values.
If future Ukrainian leadership is unstable, it is therefore reasonable to assume that they are likely Russian-centric and sympathetic; therefore, they would be unlikely to unilaterally and proactively attack Russia.
We trust Ukraine NOW. We trust Zelenskyy NOW.
The risk of Russia launching nuclear attacks against Ukraine during Trump's administration is orders of magnitude greater than the risk in the preceding years going back to 2014.
Therefore, we should be far more concerned about the immediate, real danger Russia poses to Ukraine as opposed to the speculative danger of future hypotheticals down the road that — in my opinion — do not hold water given the aforementioned geopolitical climate. When Russia and North Korea already have nukes and are a global threat, I really am not concerned about the small Ukrainian country who is currently fighting the good fight on behalf of all of us. Seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Why do you think there is any risk of Russia launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine? What would that gain them?
Yes, but there could easily be doubt those would be used to defend Ukraine, and make whatever country using them a Russian nuclear target.
If Ukraine has their own, it's a way more obvious defense for Ukraine, and Russia will know for sure they can't use nukes without retaliation with nukes.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.