Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by Pierre

But why should Russia have to accept it when the USA wouldn’t?

I didn’t bring it up, Gavin did. But it’s a valid point.

Of course its not valid. Russia already accepted it - for 18 years.
Not to mention you dont need to be on the border to aim missiles anymore.
Its 2025, not 1962.

[jfman]

Bad timing for Zelensky to be out the country having upset the world’s pre-eminent supplier of regime change.

Well, it’s on the news at length now.

As I said: this is what happens when a narcissist realises he can’t control you.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Of course its not valid. Russia already accepted it - for 18 years.
Not to mention you dont need to be on the border to aim missiles anymore.
Its 2025, not 1962.

Of course it’s valid, just because it has happened doesn’t mean you accept it.

Ask any beaten wife.

Russia had no choice but to accept it, it happened, and Geo politics were much different at the time.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Trump is right in one way he's brought Russia to the table. What comes of that I don't know.

But you have to ask trump this, when Russia installed nukes in Cuba it was nearly WW3 then so how is it any different now.

Trump and the USA need to get a grip

Ukraine did have nuclear weapons until the 1994 Budapest Agreement. Ukraine got rid of rid of its nuclear weapons in return for Russia, France, the UK and US guaranteeing its borders. An agreement breached by Russia in 2014 when it invaded Crimea.

It is quite likely Ukraine could re-acquire the ability to make a nuclear warhead without too much difficulty. And after today it has to be more likely that they will.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

They already did, before 2022 (Estonia & Latvia, joined in 2004).
Since 2023 Finland has also joined in, directly due to Putins actions.

Very true. You have to be pretty dim not to get this. Pointing out the obvious, but if Russia had taken Ukraine 3 years ago and made it part of Russia, guess who would be on its new border?

Originally Posted by jfman

Bad timing for Zelensky to be out the country having upset the world’s pre-eminent supplier of regime change.

Krasnov’s handler is already trying to effect regime change, without success, despite 3 years of trying.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is quite likely Ukraine could re-acquire the ability to make a nuclear warhead without too much difficulty. And after today it has to be more likely that they will.

It’s not “likely” at all, no idea what you’re basing that assertion on.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Ukraine did have nuclear weapons until the 1994 Budapest Agreement. Ukraine got rid of rid of its nuclear weapons in return for Russia, France, the UK and US guaranteeing its borders. An agreement breached by Russia in 2014 when it invaded Crimea.

Wasn’t it also breached by France, U.K. and the US?

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s not “likely” at all, no idea what you’re basing that assertion on.

The fact that nobody with any serious qualification to opine on it doubts that they can do it. They have the fissile material and the expertise.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...ay/ar-AA1tD3qs

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis...n-for-ukraine/

The calculus until now has been whether it is politically too costly for them to do so. Up til now the consensus has been that it would be too costly. The political calculus is clearly now changing.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

and the expertise.

What are you basing that on?

The Soviet era was 36 years ago. I seriously doubt they have the skills to build new war heads.


Btw, I’m doubtful Russia can as well.

Originally Posted by Pierre

What are you basing that on?

The analyst opinion I generously provided you links for

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

The analyst opinion I generously provided you links for

Oh those that’ said it’s highly unlikely to happen,…….those two.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Oh those that’ said it’s highly unlikely to happen,…….those two.

Yes, those.

To repeat, with emphasis:

nobody with any serious qualification to opine on it doubts that they can do it. They have the fissile material and the expertise.

The calculus until now has been whether it is politically too costly for them to do so. Up til now the consensus has been that it would be too costly. The political calculus is clearly now changing.

“Unlikely to happen” is because of the political cost, not the technical challenge. The political calculus is changing.

If people are siding with a person who assassinates his opponents in their own country, fixes internal elections to maintain power, invades other countries and murders prisoners-of-war and kidnaps children, they may wish to re-evaluate their life choices…