"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.

In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.

In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.

For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance

:::

Yeah lets blame the voters, not the candidates for not exciting the voter base with actual solutions for issues

Every single time I open Lemmy I see at least 5 posts about " voting third party bad" it is not much different from reddit during the 2016/2020 campaign. How it is run now I wouldnt know because I havent browsed reddit since 2023.

Even political Memes are generally lighthearted and people dont fight as much in the comments compared to reddit.

That is so disengenious and you know it...

Alarm clock ringing

Storing solar and wind isnt cheap enough. The battery costs are outrageous, not to mention the thing you dont want: the materials Arent easy renewable. Nuclear can generate 30% of you base powerload while the rest is powered by solar and wind (that way you dont need coal of gas).

Storing electricity from wind/solar with hydrogen isnt efficiënt and would drive up energy prices just like with batteries

A "five by ten" I would say, doesnt sound to bad.

I think its mostly ingrained into the population at this point.

Thank you kind sir!

Why are you gaslighting the guy? Some people do really get fucked by covid

I see nothing wrong with this, at least they conserve the water, which would normally run off. They probably use graded slopes for water retention. Seems way better then 90% of golf courses, but I dont know the specifics

Bernie lost in the same way the Republican party shafted the primary against Teddy Roosevelt. If you have the apparatus you are the kingmaker.

Bernie didnt play their game, Hillary had control of the game. From easy primary questions to 'voting' groups falling inline with Clinton by the democratic party.

Undemocratic primaries are a systemic failure of the American voting system.

I don't condone the violence of Israel as a state. Hamas clearly consists of individual actors behaving like isis terrorists, therefore I don't agree. Also this gives me major Bataclan, Paris flashbacks.