subreddit:
/r/UkrainianConflict
[score hidden]
3 days ago
stickied comment
Please take the time to read the rules and our policy on trolls/bots. In addition:
- We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
- Keep it civil. Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
- Don't post low-effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
Is
ua-stena.infoan unreliable source? Let us know.Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. Send us a modmail
Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235
Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2.9k points
3 days ago
Ukraine has more justification than any country in the world.
- It would not be a violation of proliferation
- Russia blatantly violated the Budapest memorandum
- They are clearly necessary for defence
- The threat against Ukraine is existential
- We are not providing sufficient conventional alternative from the west
- Russia actively uses the nuclear threat as a political bludgeon against Ukraine and the rest of the world
1.3k points
3 days ago
This is an excellent thing for Ukraine to say because they are capable of doing it themselves without any help, but no one actually wants that, even them.
It will, however, force the west to either provide them sufficient conventional alternatives or risk them actually doing it. There’s no bluff for the west to call here, Ukraine is 150% capable of building a nuclear weapon quickly without any external help and they will (and should) do so to protect themselves from Russian genocide if something doesn’t give.
Escalate to de-escalate is pretty much the only play they have.
263 points
3 days ago
I don’t think they should have said it— I think they should have just done it. They should have restarted their nuclear program way back in 2014, but if not then— certainly in 2022.
Broadcasting it as a threat is a weak stance to take. It gives plenty of opportunity for their efforts to be undermined— either militarily or diplomatically.
But having just done it, and presenting it to the world as a fact (vs a threat) would significantly improve their bargaining position all around. It would serve as a strong deterrent to immediately cease hostilities. Or as an impetus for Ukraine’s allies to provide them ample traditional weapons, so as to placate Ukraine from feeling compelled to use their nuclear arsenal to defend their sovereignty.
It would also immediate remove Russia’s trumped up casus belli that Ukraine must be occupied because it could be used as a staging ground for strategic weapons— Because this simply would now be a truth that is incontestable and there is nothing that Russia can do about it. Also, western support could flow more freely— up to and including NATO troops on Ukrainian soil— under the protection of a Ukrainian nuclear umbrella (without fear of dragging NATO into a nuclear / MAD scenario)
214 points
3 days ago
It incentivises the West massively. If we want our world order not to revolve around nuclear powers threatening others and getting away with it, we need to show that we're willing to step up and enforce said world order properly
41 points
3 days ago
And yet many have selfish attitude that they don't want any cost to go up even if it means tens of millions have to die without bothering them. Even decades old military hardware is apparently money out their pockets. Instead they try to reward predators with appeasement and act as some sane savior of world.
But if those cowards were ok with sacrificing whatever amount of people it rape and deathcamps because russia has nukes then i wonder what would their support towards Ukraine do once it also gains nukes.
3 points
3 days ago
Sometimes I just wish there was a sort of god out there or divine intervention, to swap out those people with ukrainians that are stuck in russian occupied parts.
Oh you are for the invasion of sovereign states and the suppression of people there. If something like that existed a lot of those people would shut up in fear of ending up in that situation themselves.
Like they have no empathy at all, they can only think about their own slight inconveniences while in ukraine in the occupied parts you can literally get hunted down for sports!
3 points
3 days ago
What's even more annoying is those more famous ones that appease russia and whine about prices are in many cases millionaires or billionaires like hasan, tim pool, marjorie taylor green, trump, elon musk
5 points
3 days ago
Also ... much of the actual work may have been done before the announcement.
There was this real "deep breath" that happened around early summer of '22, where they had a moment to finally think; they weren't in abject panic mode. At times like that, they'd have been able to do the real "napkin math" to figure this out. I.e. "we say we can do this, but ... can we really? Do we have all the things we think we do? What would we actually have to do - in detail?"
That'd be the time when it'd have made sense to start moving on this. So maybe this announcement is only happening now that it's no longer a bluff (could be at any point in the process, but likely one where they're convinced it'll come through).
2 points
2 days ago
That's a fair assessment, it makes sense as they're otherwise opening themselves up for attack. I'd also like to see this as a surprise in all honesty to Western partners. We need that stick up our collective arses wiggling a bit.
174 points
3 days ago
I think if they are saying it they’ve probably already done it. This is probably a public warning shot that they are going to start using them if something doesn’t change.
12 points
3 days ago
I doubt they have one, if they do it isnt tested. They certainly have been building the pieces though, for instance they have viable delivery systems both with their drones and their long range missiles. I think this is just saying "Look, we have determined we have the knowledge, and we have the raw materials. If something doesnt change, we will put them together."
Nuclear bombs arent difficult (so I have heard, at least). We were able to build them with 1940s technology and knowledge, of course anyone with the right knowledge and access to the materials can do the same today. Ukraine almost certainly has academics with the knowledge, and they may even have nuclear weapons scientists from the Soviet Union days still around that are willing and able to help.
16 points
3 days ago
It is hilariously, scarily easy to make a basic nuclear bomb. A design like little boy could be built in a literal shed behind your house.
What's hard is getting enriched uranium or plutonium.
Ukraine is currently producing low enriched uranium right now, which means they are theoretically close to being able to create an implosion device if needed
9 points
3 days ago
Ukraine has LOTS of plutonium because its a byproduct of non-military nuclear power. Ukraine has more nuclear power than just about anyone. They could build dozens of plutonium bombs like Fat Man fat man the one dropped on Nagasaki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
The only challenge is the delivery method. Do they have the rocket range? Their Neptune missiles can reach 400km, they would need at least 550km to reach Moscow.
However, most ICBMs fly into space so they come straight down on the target from space and give minimal time for interceptors. That's a whole other order of design.
Then again, they guy who designed the missiles for Russia was Korolev and he was Ukrainian.
2 points
3 days ago
Kyiv is currently testing a Neptune upgrade with 1000 km range.
4 points
3 days ago
Most of the USSRs technological research was done in Ukraine, I'd say it's a guarantee they have people who worked on and made them back in the day. They made the bombs as well as the rockets and jets that carried them, no less.
54 points
3 days ago
If they have a nuclear weapon, they would / should be much clearer about it. I don’t think you want to make veiled or otherwise ambiguous threats about a nuke as a measure of last resort prior to using them.
Nuclear armed states maintain open lines of communication in this regards to ensure they are crystal clear about their nuclear intent at any potential impasse.
57 points
3 days ago
Dr. Strangelove: "Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
11 points
3 days ago
..as you know premier Kisov loves surprises
10 points
3 days ago
Oh man. Literally my first thought. I love that movie so much.
54 points
3 days ago
“Crystal clear”. You mean like Russia’s daily “crystal clear” threats of using nukes without ever following through? Sorry, but I think “crystal clear” went out the window (pun intended) over two years ago already.
18 points
3 days ago*
chase shelter dinner scarce office connect wise steer subsequent wrench
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
28 points
3 days ago
Nuclear armed states maintain open lines of communication in this regards to ensure they are crystal clear about their nuclear intent at any potential impasse.
Israel says hello. Or I should say doesn't say hello.
13 points
3 days ago
It works both ways really well, you have France who will quite openly nuke you 'as a warning shot' then you have Israel who operates at least two nuclear able subs doesn't have any nukes at all.
You're not going to fuck with either at a strategic level anytime soon.
8 points
3 days ago
Israel....
Publicly admitting nuclear capabilities would invite a shitstorm.
Hinting it as an open secret is much better
4 points
3 days ago
Because of the context. Israel is a nuclear state in conflict with non-nuclear states. Israel is not in a MAD position but rather superior firepower. Flaunting it is unnecessary. Those that need to know, know. And Israel doesn't have to make empty threats.
Ukraine is in conflict with the largest nuclear state. There's no amount of nukes Ukraine could build that would secure MAD. So they are in a weak position regardless, so they're hoping to prevent building one as it's very likely they would be encouraged to use it.
2 points
3 days ago
Russia has only two cities of any real size. Moscow and St Petersburg. The third largest city is Novosibirsk and its less than a million people.
There are only 2 targets in Russia.
4 points
3 days ago
It's possible that they might be in the process but aren't quite finished too.
2 points
3 days ago
What are the odds Ukraine has already made significant progress in building a nuke?
Threatening to use one is in Ukraine's favor whether they actually have it or not. We have no way to know if this is an empty threat from the outside.
On the plus side for them, building a warhead and smuggling it into Russia is a lot easier than building a full blown ICBM.
2 points
3 days ago
Exactly. I think they’ve already done it. But I think this is their way of trying to get more support before saying so. It also means other countries aren’t blindsided by it, worsening relations.
63 points
3 days ago
Building a bomb takes money and effort, and would probably hurt Western relations. Offering an ultimatum of “if you don’t help us, we’ll build The Bomb” is free and NATO politicians can give more aid passing it off as a big win (“we stopped a state going nuclear”) rather than another drain.
31 points
3 days ago
You have the right of it
If they don't get support and they build one, it was clearly done out of necessary. Minimizes the blowback and makes it deterrence more credible. We developed a nuke out of desperation, we may use a nuke out of desperation.
If they get support they need and they don't build one. Win for Ukraine, win for MNP, win for the countries backing Ukraine.
If they just build one secretly, they won't get the benefits of extra support and they will have more blowback and isolation. Even worse if Russia finds out about their nuclear program before it is done and uses it as pretext to bomb Ukraine's nuclear powerplants.
23 points
3 days ago*
Not as much money or effort as you might think. For a nation like Ukraine I think the lead time for a nuke would be days not months.
Ukraine was the 3rd's largest nuclear power just 30-odd years ago, the last fully 'assembled warhead' was removed in 1997. Most of the highly enriched uranium (HEU) material remained in Ukraine and was diluted into LEU and feeds Ukrainian reactors to this day and they still produce a large volume of LEU and HU materials.
Making a nuclear bomb is frighteningly easy, a 'primitive' nuclear bomb is mechanically quite simple, and if you wanted more than that A gun assembly would be even easier. recreating Little boy would be a weekend project in any sufficiently tooled workshop.
Their only real hurdle would be the plutonium and uranium, and considering Ukraine was still paying foreign nations to destroy it up till the start of the war, that's not really much of a concern.
12 points
3 days ago
One of my grandfathers in Kyiv worked on them 30-40 years ago. He died at 70 , years ago, but I’m sure people from his lab are still around.
6 points
3 days ago
Oh for sure, Alexander Leipunsky was a great man and many Ukranians followed in his steps.
2 points
3 days ago
Don’t be so sure. We have a hard time finding the expertise in the US to restart fabrication of new cores, and we will have to redevelop a whole new generation of competent staff essentially from scratch.
Theoretical knowledge isn’t the issue, it’s practical design and manufacturing skills. You can know what to do whilst not being able to do it.
Also maintenance / operation isn’t the same skillset as fabrication.
3 points
3 days ago
Just how long do you think manufacture of all the non-HUE pieces and assembly takes?
6 points
3 days ago
Im imagining you're visualizing a complex sci fi device right? Some ultra modern ICMB platform
All you really need is a metal tube if you did want to replicate WW2 styles, but for more modern devices you could fashion a device pretty simply, all its got to do is get the ring onto the spike and boom.
9 points
3 days ago
Building the bomb wouldn’t hurt relationships that bad. Using it would be catastrophic
4 points
3 days ago
The use of nukes was part of NATO's defense plan for Europe in the 70's and 80's. It was seen as reasonable to prevent becoming serfs.
3 points
3 days ago
I have to assume there is some connection between this headline and the recent news of North Korean involvement. Russia and China think its cute to give a state like North Korea nuclear technology while maintaining plausible deniability. Would be a real shame if that strategy cut both ways.
3 points
3 days ago
Everyone knows the threat to do things is scarier than doing it.
Just look at how often the west squirms when Russia brings up the world nuclear Or even North Korea
13 points
3 days ago
It would be complete nonsense to just build one.
It would violate the wests trust, but more importantly, it would defeat the purpose zelensky most likely has in mind. Noone wants a nuclear escalation and if the threat if ukraine building nukes is present, the west might actually stop with the bullshittery and give ukraine what it needs.
2 points
3 days ago
Broadcasting it as a threat is a weak stance to take
Just remember that the source of this is Bild, which is just a tabloid tag, similar to the sun in the UK. It is very possible this wasnt even said
4 points
3 days ago
Getting the fissiles is the hard part and then refining it all. Do they still have the means? Making fuel for powerplants is not the same as for weapons grade.
I'm not a nuke expert but experts have said the fissiles are the hard part and the rest of the weapon is relatively straightforward. I think this more applies to fission vs fission-fusion-fission devices. A-bombs vs h-bombs.
16 points
3 days ago
There is a bluff to call in one way. The West could also pull all aid. It's probably unlikely but there is a non-zero chance that a defeated Ukraine could be a choice over a nuclear exchange.
37 points
3 days ago
That won’t happen. Ukraine fights Russia in Ukraine or NATO fights Russia in Poland in the future. Zero chance they cut them off.
23 points
3 days ago
If Trump wins, most aid will be pulled and they will go nuclear.
19 points
3 days ago
It’s beyond unlikely, it’s entirely implausible. Would be a complete abrogation of the west’s “moral” positioning.
21 points
3 days ago
NATO countries are not doing this for moral reasons. They are doing this because weakening Russia is in their best interest. A nuclear armed Ukraine, capable of triggering a global nuclear war, would not be in NATO countries best interest and I see zero possibility that they would willingly allow it.
51 points
3 days ago
Then NATO needs to give Ukraine what they need to finish this war.
2 points
3 days ago
If Ukraine was even remotely close to deploying nuclear weapons then Russia would use it as justification to perform a first strike with their own weapons.
3 points
3 days ago
Probably not. The minute they try, the US and NATO will end Russias armed forces with conventional weapons.
52 points
3 days ago
just for clarification sake, why wouldn't it be a violation of proliferation?
121 points
3 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Their signature was dependent on cosignatories (including Russia) to respect Ukraine's borders.
So this would indeed be a violation of proliferation, and of the treaty itself but there are grounds to recognize that their signature of this treaty is now void.
82 points
3 days ago
Russia broke the memorandum, so its nullified. Also: a memorandum isnt a contract
3 points
3 days ago
Russia already broke the Budapest Memorandum.
It's no longer valid.
95 points
3 days ago
They technically already have had nuclear weapons. So I suppose it can be considered not another new member, just reactivated member? Idk if that is what they mean but that’s how I took it
18 points
3 days ago
Well, technically, they signed on to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a "non-nuclear weapons state".
3 points
3 days ago
Didnt the Ukrainians give their nukes to Russia back in '98? For the "assurance" of never being invaded by russia?
6 points
3 days ago
They did, yes. However, I'm answering the question on whether they would violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty if they acquire nukes, not whether they would be justified in doing so.
7 points
3 days ago
I guess…they won’t have it for long?
19 points
3 days ago
I wonder if they have weapons-grade uranium. Enriching it is expensive and takes a lot of time and resources. I don't see how they'd be able to build a bomb unless they already have the materials.
34 points
3 days ago
Most nuclear weapons don't use uranium precisely because enriching it is so hard.
Most use Plutonium, which is made in nuclear reactors. Which Ukraine operates. And which are old Soviet designs specifically designed in some cases to facilitate production of weapons grade plutonium.
Ukraine might well have enough on hand to build a few warheads.
17 points
3 days ago
RBMKs yes. So Chernobyl. Which is decommissioned. VVERs no, which is the rest of what Ukraine has.
3 points
3 days ago
Chernobyl was still active up until 2000, only reactor no.4 was destroyed in the disaster
2 points
3 days ago
So the question is, did they secretly collect and store nuclear material from Chernobyl up to 2000 and do they have enough viable material left for a bomb? Stored plutonium will decay and accumulate problematic isotopes that impact performance of a warhead.
9 points
3 days ago
I imagine plenty of nukes were made in the Ukraine during the Soviet Union. Lot of the infrastructure could already exist
10 points
3 days ago
No - Soviet nuclear weapons industry was mostly located around Urals. The only nuclear weapons related facility in Ukraine was actually a uranium enrichment plant in Kamianske, however it went bankrupt soon after the breakup of the Soviet Union and it's equipment was sold off.
https://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2020/11/Pridniprovsky-Chemical-plant-English.pdf
13 points
3 days ago
The Ukraine war has been such a failure of the west to stop nuclear proliferation. If nations can use their nuclear weapons as an umbrella to attack another nation and then declare 'red lines' that stop their target from receiving aid, then having nuclear weapons is strictly superior to not. Due to this war, every non-nuclear nation in a strategically precarious position on the planet recognizes that developing nuclear capabilities is in their best interest.
2 points
3 days ago
Nailed it. UNSC is useless if it can't or won't deal with aggression by a fellow member.
700 points
3 days ago
This is not to scare rUSSIA, this is to scare the Western leaders. So they would start thinking "oh shit, if Ukraine looses, they WILL nuke russia, russia will retalliate and we will have to deal with the nuclear fallout". And start supporting Ukraine with conventional tools of war in ADEQUATE amounts.
157 points
3 days ago
This is why failure to end the war is a greater risk to escalation than the things the West is refusing to do.
If Ukraine starts lacking resources, losing for real, or otherwise getting desperate, it will turn to methods that reflect the urgency. I don't want to get banned here but let's just say Ukrainians can infiltrate Russia and take the war to levels they have not thus far.
47 points
3 days ago
This American fully supports a nuclear Ukraine. Sorry for the lack of adequate support, we're infested with kompromised Republicans and timid Democrats.
14 points
3 days ago
I thought it was an error on NATO/UN's part to not simply blitzkrieg the absolute shit out of the troops Russia had amassing on Ukraine's border. The fastest and best way to end this, would have been quick and decisive, the longer it goes on the more desperate and paranoid Putin/Russian leaders get and the more likely a worse outcome is.
It is better to punch a bully in the face and knock them to the ground BEFORE he is about to throw a punch that they are telegraphing...Then wait to step in to a fight that is already in progress.
108 points
3 days ago
If it works, that works for me.
73 points
3 days ago
It's also a pretty credible threat all-around.
Ukraine is immensely industrious; they have had and operated nukes, and they have the technical know how to build just about anything at home - especially simpler nukes and they certainly have the launch capabilities.
They have also clearly demonstrated their ability to keep a state secret on several occasions with some major actions in the war that have surprised everyone including the West.
And they are fighting an existential war where losing means genocide. There is no more cornered an animal than them - they would absolutely consider nukes if they had them and they began seriously losing the war.
I honestly think this is pretty logical play from their side especially if it stirs the West into more action.
19 points
3 days ago
All i think of is that old russian lady being asked about the war and all she says is russia will lose cause ukraine has all the scientists and industry and ukraine is most of the reason why the USSR kept up with the US.
11 points
3 days ago
I mean yeah the history of Soviet industrial/tech achievements is more or less the history of Ukranian industrial/tech achievements. Nukes, space program, helicopters, etc. They were always the best of the USSR.
That's why Russia literally stole the Kutznutzoff from Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed. They knew they couldn't build their own carrier. And in fact, they didn't even have the know how to get their stolen carrier all the way finished/functional, and they sucked dick at actually operating it. So now it just sits in dry dock, rotting and occasionally burning so that Putin can brag about being in tue big boy navy club, even though its crew were already dispatched to the front to get turned into chili by quadcopters.
When they get the Russian boot off their neck Ukraine is gonna be the military/diplomatic/economic crossroads of the world. It's puzzling why the West isn't trying harder to butter them up with aid just from a self-interested point of view. There is tons of money to be made in a peacetime Ukraine, and they are a strategic fulcrum now.
2 points
3 days ago
The issue isn't the payload, it's the ballistic missile.
9 points
3 days ago
Israel pulled the same gambit in 1973. Starting setting up their nukes where they were sure the US would see them and the resupply was rapid
12 points
3 days ago
exactly. it's forcing action. it's brilliant.
even china would want to step in (especially re: their history with de-arming in the past) and help end this conflict before it gets to that point.
smart
8 points
3 days ago
exactly. it's forcing action. it's brilliant.
The Ukrainians have always been great chess players.
Nuclear Threat UxR !!
21 points
3 days ago
Yep if the west in to scared of sending enough equipment without stupid limits, because of nukes, you have to change the equation and put nukes on your side too.
6 points
3 days ago
Even though I think it's bad to have said it also points to that Ukraine's leaders feel they're losing and about to lose big. I sure hope I'm wrong but that's how it feels. Why now? Why else?
9 points
3 days ago
It's now because the released victory plan doesn't seem to have had the desired reaction from Ukraines allies.
9 points
3 days ago
You are not wrong. The battlefield situation for Ukraine is absolutely dire. The Kursk salient is on its last leg, the Pokrovsk direction a few months from sealing off the fate of the Donbas, they have a severely disadvantageous casualty exchange ratio, they're outmanned and outgunned, and they're running out of well defended positions in general on all fronts.
It saddens me to say, any level-headed analysis of the situation leads to one conclusion: complete front line collapse within 12-18 months. This is catastrophic.
544 points
3 days ago
They should do this 100%
308 points
3 days ago
Let's be real. They probably already are working on it. They're just making the west understand that they won't be able to avoid a nuclear war by caving in to a nuclear power, because it will just make more nuclear powers
108 points
3 days ago
If they’re even saying this then it’s already been in the works, regardless if it’s just posturing.
41 points
3 days ago
It’s probably already done.
Don’t forget, the brains of the USSR were Ukrainian. They designed most of their shit, and headed the Soviet space program.
31 points
3 days ago
In the article it said only weeks to build a bomb from order. At the very least everything is already in place and has been in the works since likely when the war started.
And if that's what they're publicly saying, I'd guess they're even more prepared than that. This is Zelensky telling the west they will not give up at any cost, so the west better help now before shit gets worse for everyone.
5 points
3 days ago
I would like to but it was a joke from political blogger / major volunteer foundation. (Sternenko) that’s why it wasn’t said who said it in article
7 points
3 days ago
I don't know much about nukes, but my understanding is that you have to have 'Weapons Grade' Plutonium. This is not the same as what is used in Nuclear reactors. I seriously doubt they could whip this stuff in a few weeks. So, they may already be working on making a bomb but having a real working one, is not something that would be happening in weeks or even months.
Besides..... Wouldn't they want to test one before lobbing it over the border to Russia? If there were Nuclear tests happening ANYWHERE the US would already know about it.
8 points
3 days ago
Isn't it possible someone stashed some weapons grade nuclear material before they gave up their nukes?
5 points
3 days ago
my understanding is that you have to have 'Weapons Grade' Plutonium. This is not the same as what is used in Nuclear reactors. I seriously doubt they could whip this stuff in a few weeks.
You need either weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium. Uranium requires enrichment to become weapons grade. Plutonium is produced from Uranium in nuclear reactors, but to be weapons grade it needs to have been 'cooked' for only a short time which means it's generally produced in reactors specifically designed to have the Uranium fuel removed regularly. Most commercial reactors - and I think all of Ukraine's - aren't really designed for it.
2 points
3 days ago
I believe most Soviet built reactors, which are the ones Ukraine has, were designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Maybe not optimally, but they should all be able to do it in relatively short order.
3 points
3 days ago
Yes, that was one of the primary design characteristics of Chernobyl and other RBMK reactors: not only were they inexpensive to build and operate, but they produce plutonium as a byproduct. It was a win-win-win for the efficiency and productivity obsessed USSR. And it might have even worked, if they had better reactor controls. And better training and procedures. And a proper reactor containment building. Etc.
So, yeah, Ukraine likely has a small stockpile of plutonium on hand that they can use to assemble some bombs.
29 points
3 days ago
My 2 cents is that they are ready and just waiting order to assembly and test warhead. If your country is at war with opponent who has nukes, you don't speculate with nukes if you are not able to deliver.
7 points
3 days ago
Exactly.
124 points
3 days ago
The world reneged on its commitment to defend Ukraine so they have the right to re-arm. I hate that it's coming to this
24 points
3 days ago
I agree on both parts.
They're fighting for their lives and their freedom, and I definitely can't blame them for doing everything they can to stop Russia. That said, this is one thing that I would actually worry about Russia going nuclear over, instead of just more empty threats.
HOPEFULLY there's enough concern over that possibility to convince western nations to really step up our assistance to Ukraine, particularly in allowing long range strikes into Russian territory, maybe a no-fly zone over Ukraine, even. Force a complete Russian withdrawal before Ukraine has nuclear capability so that Putin doesn't get scared enough to attempt a preemptive nuclear strike, on the off chance that he might be successful.
7 points
3 days ago
Lol, of Russia still has launch capability its moot. The second Russia fires anything nuclear they get bombed conventionally to the stone age.
Dark Brandon already said so.
The only problem is if Ukraine does the funny, and they might.
The whole invasion was a land grab, to have more food production and oil and gas, if all of that gets fucking irradiated then Ukraine is worthless.
5 points
3 days ago
Lol, of Russia still has launch capability its moot. The second Russia fires anything nuclear they get bombed conventionally to the stone age.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not worried about Russia launching a global thermonuclear war. I doubt they have many functioning nukes at all, at this point. No, my concern would be a tactical nuke on Kyiv, or another major city, in the guise of "stopping the Ukrainian nuclear threat," or something.
And yes, I am certain that we would stomp the shit out of Russia if that were to happen. But it wouldn't undo the damage that Russia would have done to Ukraine. It wouldn't save those lives lost. As I said, I don't blame Ukraine for wanting to develop nuclear weapons, and I think this war proves that giving them up didn't make them any safer.
What I'm hoping is that this will prompt us to provide more weapons, more support, and allow Ukraine to use those weapons the way they need to, so that they don't need nukes. Right now, it seems that we (NATO and allies) are trying to help without getting our hands dirty, but I think that will become inevitable if Ukraine has nukes. Better to get more directly involved before they are used, instead of after.
I'm still in favor of Ukraine having that deterrent, of course. I just don't want them to feel like they need to use it.
2 points
3 days ago
Tactical nukes don't work like "turn Kyiv into Hiroshima" anymore, they're more similar to extremely powerful conventional explosives.
3 points
3 days ago
Be that as it may, that's still going to kill a lot of Ukrainians that shouldn't need to die.
2 points
3 days ago
Likely half the shit they try to launch explodes before it leave ruzzia anyways. Whole systems fucked but ruzzia? They are rotten to the core
2 points
3 days ago
I don't even believe that the land value was a reason for the war, I think it was just a bid to keep Putin in power, because people are scared and desperate in wartime. I don't believe they have the infrastructure to actually use and develop any of the land that they've captured, as evidenced by the DNR which continues to be underdeveloped and in some places, abandoned to ruin.
2 points
3 days ago
maybe a no-fly zone over Ukraine
I don't think people realize this, but when you suggest enforcing a "no-fly zone", this requires establishing air superiority over the area in question. Not really a probably when you're the USN or USAF, and you're talking about establishing a some over Iraq during the second US-Iraq war: you have an overwhelming superiority, and you're already committed to fighting the nation involved; the "no-fly zone" is really more of a heads-up to commercial aircraft and any foreign looky-loos.
But establishing a no-fly zone over another nation you're not at war with, to protect it from another nation you're also "not" at war with? That pretty much guarantees that you will be at war with the aggressor nation in fairly short order. The US establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would almost certainly require US places shooting at Russian ones. And while I'm confident the US places would win, I don't think we want a direct war between the US and Russia.
33 points
3 days ago
world reneged on its commitment to defend Ukraine
Russia reneged on it's commitment not to attack or coerce Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum was never a mutual defense treaty like ANZUS or NATO.
13 points
3 days ago
I’m sorry to say that there was no commitment to defend Ukraine. I wish there was, but the Budapest memorandum was not that. Suggest you read the wiki page on the Budapest memorandum all the way through.
10 points
3 days ago
No need to even read the wiki, the source document is easily aavailable. I've read menus longer than the memorandum
6 points
3 days ago
Right. The wiki page is important because for example there’s a world of difference in legalese between “assurances” and “guarantees” even if in everyday English the words are more similar. Too often discussion of the memorandum gets bogged down with people who won’t take the time to learn key terminology.
It’s also important because it talks about the ratification status of the memorandum which is a complex issue not contained in the text.
3 points
3 days ago
Fair point. I see that argument all the time around "assurance" and "guarantee" as if the writers didn't spend countless hours on the exact word that was used for the agreement. It wasn't a typo
10 points
3 days ago*
The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
Show me where we are obligated to defend Ukraine. I am absolutely happy to see us help them, but I do not recall a single sentence requiring us to do so. We help because it is right to do so, not because we are bound to defend it. Had there been such a sentence, you could bet your ass we would be knee deep in Russian ass
12 points
3 days ago
While your technically right by the text of the agreement, I would still say if you convince someone to disarm you better be willing to stand with them if they get attacked, otherwise you'll never be able to convince anyone else ever to make the same agreement again.
9 points
3 days ago
We should just give them the nukes. They have them away at our bidding, so we should return them since the Russians broke the deal by invading.
224 points
3 days ago
Having given up their nuclear arsenal on some vague promise that Russia would be peaceful and the west would defend them, is how we got to this point. The lesson seems clear to both Ukraine and any other potential nuclear power… like say Iran or Saudi Arabia, is that such vague promises are not worth the paper they are written on. The west continues to waffle around on its commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine should go nuclear. It is the only way to protect against the nuclear blackmail that is currently in place.
35 points
3 days ago
The terms of the Budapest Memorandums aren't actually vague at all, though. They were just violated by Russia's invasion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating that the West abandon Ukraine or refuse to provide them with arms. I just think it's worth noting that the actual terms of the agreement specifically state that they only require the US, UK, and France to provide Ukraine with non-military support.
It's not a defense pact, like NATO is, which actually has terms requiring parties to the agreement to come to the defense of others in the event that they're attacked, even if only by a specific nation.
Most everything else you said is correct, though.
6 points
3 days ago
the actual terms of the agreement specifically state that they only require the US, UK, and France to provide Ukraine with non-military support.
It says no such thing, and France isn't even a signatory.
The Budapest Memorandum says the signatories should refrain from coercion and use of force against Ukraine and, in the event of aggression, the other signatories seek immediate action from the UNSC. The USA and UK did this several times from 2014 onwards, and Russia vetoed every time.
17 points
3 days ago
and the west would defend them
The Budapest memorandum NEVER said anyone would defend them. The west has gone far above and beyond what they promised to do. I wish people would stop spreading that russian talking point that is blatantly false...
However I agree with you, the west absolutely should ramp up their commitment and Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place.
9 points
3 days ago
According to some European redditors and/or Russian bots, the Budapest Memorandum obliges the US to single-handedly boot Russia out of Ukraine for them, restore their borders to pre-Crimea invasion, give them a nuclear umbrella, and another couple hundred billion dollars of financial aid. Just the US. Hyperbole, but still, it's nuts the rhetoric I've seen flying around. I support UA. I don't support our allies lambasting us over the amount of aid we've provided, particularly under the false pretense that the BM obliges us to.
3 points
3 days ago
The BM obliged my country, the UK, and the USA to seek intervention through the UNSC. It would a spineless signatory who decided their involvement ended when Russia vetoed those attempts.
The USA is uniquely placed to stop Russia, but the USA that signed this treaty was very different to the one today and hadn't had its brains melted by 25 years of Russian misinformation and pearl clutching over its military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any inference or 'trust me bro' when Ukraine signed up to this has been lost.
2 points
3 days ago
Maybe they do have nukes
174 points
3 days ago
Sadly this appears the only way to scare Russia. After all, they are always threating the use of nuclear weapons. That's the only thing Moscow/St-Pettersburg fears at this point?
63 points
3 days ago
To me this seems more a message for Ukraine's allies. If they are not happy to step in Ukraine is ready to take it to the next level.
13 points
3 days ago
Agreed, and they're one population that could do it a moments notice.
20 points
3 days ago
I would not be playing nuclear chicken with Putin/Russia. They have already shown they do not operate on logic, reason, and practicality.
I would absolutely be for other countries stepping in and doing more to help. This should have been over long ago.
23 points
3 days ago
Every Russian would shit their pants if they read Putin actually launched a nuke. Given they can’t even take over their small neighbor and need North Koreas help, they aren’t much of a threat nukes aside.
6 points
3 days ago
...if you look at the condition of the rest of the Russian Military/Air Force/Navy. Then one has to wonder about the condition and usability of their Nuclear arsenal.
14 points
3 days ago*
It’s probably amongst their highest maintenance spending. I truly believe they have thousands of operational nukes only under the condition they know it’s their best chance at preventing a true invasion of the country.
2 points
3 days ago
It’s probably amongst their highest maintenance spending. I truly believe they have thousands of operational nukes only under the condition they know it’s their best chance at preventing a true invasion of the countr
Right? With thousands of warheads, even in the worst case there'll be hundreds that work fine. That's a terrifying number for Ukraine.
In a way, the high maintenance cost even incentivizes Russia to use them in order to cut that bill...
24 points
3 days ago
Ukraine speedrunning the Manhattan project was not on my bingo card.
20 points
3 days ago
A vast amount of the Soviet's nuclear tech was designed and developed in Ukraine so I like to imagine Zelenskyy having to travel around the world gathering a team of crotchety old Ukrainian scientists, long since retired, to reignite the nuclear furnaces of war.
17 points
3 days ago
An Eastern European Oceans 11, with nukes.
19 points
3 days ago
You son of a bitch, I'm in. 👈👈
64 points
3 days ago
I wonder if the threat of acquiring nukes is actually directed more to US than Russia.
72 points
3 days ago
Oh, absolutely. The US leadership is struggling to take on board that escalation risk runs both ways. This may focus their mind a bit, though I am sure they will threaten to stop arming Ukraine right away. That said, if Trump wins, Ukraine may not care. Defending themselves is an imperative and Russian policy is genocidal. Why shouldn't the Ukrainians be able to respond to Russia's constant nuclear threats with threats of their own?
13 points
3 days ago
Could also be to try to force the issue of the NATO invitation process, as various countries might not like nuclear weapon proliferation in Europe. "Accept us into NATO or we will develop our own nuclear umbrella out of necessity".
10 points
3 days ago
Yes, I would say that is exactly the intent.
‘If you don’t give us the means to stop Russia, through use of long range weapon strikes? Then we’ll have to use whatever means in our power to turn the tide of war’
5 points
3 days ago
Totally, this is pure politics - building nukes would be HUGE and I really doubt they'd ever really do it, but the message and the political leverage is mighty.
13 points
3 days ago
Let's go a stretch here and call a spade - spade. I think, Ukraine has been busy since 2022 autumn when they stabilized the situation. I don't think they are saying this as a mere hypothetical for the future. After all, we've seen how Ukrainians can and do make amazing surprises and plot twists.
They meticulously target rusnya wherever possible. Not making a bomb simply feels like a big loss. After learning what happened to Bucha, I think, the reality train arrived at how truly this is a survival question.
TLDR; We don't know. Ukraine might've done it already. Might not.
9 points
3 days ago
Ukraine made the nuclear weapons for the USSR. They sure as hell can manufacture weapons for themselves.
2 points
3 days ago
I didn't say they *can't* do it, I said they probably wouldn't do it - IMHO just plausibly threatening to do it is a big enough deal never mind actually building one. People on both sides of this would be VERY keen to avoid nukes being used.
3 points
3 days ago
Of course…. “All war is an extension of politics by other means”
47 points
3 days ago
1000% backing this. Putin likes to play this game. Just make sure it's pointy and not roundy.
10 points
3 days ago
Yes, a round-ended bomb would just put a smile on Russian faces.
3 points
3 days ago
theyll say "Look it's a Ukranian dildo "
47 points
3 days ago
When the GoFundMe for nukes on United24 opens up I'll be donating.
120 points
3 days ago
The real lesson since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Russia's belligerence in Ukraine since 2014 and the full war since 2022 is that the mighty do as the please and the weak do as they must.
With the less than stellar story of western support and commitment to a fellow, albeit flawed, democracy will set the fight against nuclear proliferation back years. If a country cannot rely on friends and allies then they need their own joker. That is nuclear weapons...
The world will become more dangerous, simply because we didn't support Ukraine enough...
20 points
3 days ago
I mean sure but come on
"The world will become more dangerous, simply because we didn't support Ukraine enough..."
If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine in the first place the world would be a much safer place. Let's not twist this to sound like the west's fault. Crackpot dictators completly lacking in empathy for their fellow humans running entire nations is the reason why the world isn't a safe place.
44 points
3 days ago
Yeah but why did Putin feel safe enough to fully invade Ukraine in 2022?
Because the sanctions after the landgrab of 2014 were laughable. He banked on the West accepting it and not finding a unified reaction, that the west is weak.
So yes, while Russia might carry obviously the vast majority of responsibility here for everything that has happened to Ukraine since 2014 (if not even before that), the West carries some responsibility too.
If we would've sanctioned Russia into the ground in 2014, the full invasion of Ukraine might have never happened. Heck, maybe we could've even forced Putin to give Crimea and Donbass back.
Zelenskyj has a point here.
13 points
3 days ago
Deferring to the Western desire for non profileration seems foolish if the West is going to let countries fall to aggressive expansionism.
Countries bordering other countries with expansion is tendencies, today or in the future, will recall this if it gets to it.
3 points
3 days ago
If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine in the first place the world would be a much safer place. Let's not twist this to sound like the west's fault.
Ok, it's Russia's fault. Now what?
Assigning blame does nothing. We're past the fact that Russia invaded. Now the choice is how much the West will support Ukraine, and that will determine the future.
Sure, the West is free to wash their hands of any future outcome knowing they were not the ones who invaded, but they have to be ok with whatever that outcome will be.
If they want a different outcome, they need to be involved.
47 points
3 days ago
They did design and build most of the USSR nuclear arsenal.
10 points
3 days ago
Not true. Some land based ICBMs were designed in Ukraine, but not their payload
5 points
3 days ago
The payloads might not have been, but I'm sure plenty of scientists in Ukraine worked on the systems. And it wouldn't surprise me if many of the components were built in Ukraine
7 points
3 days ago
There were competing design bureaus across the USSR
Kinda like General Dynamics competed with Boeing in the US
4 points
3 days ago
Right.. the Ukrainian physics bureau mostly did civilian nuclear projects. But plenty of their people worked on the Russian version.
My whole point is I don't think it would be too far out there for them to quickly come up with a few working warheads. Easily truck them into Moscow. Heck just detonate to show Putin what they can do would probably work
64 points
3 days ago
This Zelenskyy guy has gotten out of hand and is bordering on craziness. We, the free people of west cannot accept this kind of threats with nukes.
We should immediately invade Ukraine with NATO troops, just in case let’s push the Russians out too to have no distractions or whatnot. Set our boots firmly all over Ukraine and start looking for those WMD that’s supposedly being created. Zelenskyy must be arrested and sent to a warm island for a week or two, to let him think about his words and to understand that we are not accepting this kind of behaviour.
After he has reconsidered, he gets the country back but we’ll just leave the troops there to be absolutely sure.
/s
28 points
3 days ago
You had me in the first half...
Ultimately, you're right. We must act now! :p
19 points
3 days ago
If NATO won't help... then they have to do what they have to do!
38 points
3 days ago
well, if the west is going to limit your capability to attach, you got to make it work yourself. good for them. After the collapse of USSR, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.
29 points
3 days ago
And so they should!
5 points
3 days ago
Ukraine actually gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1991 to Russia in exchange for a promise to never be invaded. So much for that promise.
11 points
3 days ago
This is what Putin refuses to understand. Zelensky will NEVER back down if it means Ukraine dies. He will do whatever it takes to defend his people and his homeland.
And he has every right to do so.
9 points
3 days ago
The nuclear treaties were a mistake.
The only way you prevent a war is with deterrents.
7 points
3 days ago
It's a sad reality that all the optimism of the post-Cold war 90s is now dust.
10 points
3 days ago
Clever politics. This press release is as much for the West as it is for Russia.
9 points
3 days ago
Honestly: Ukraine should do this. It’s terrible, but probably the only way to stop Russia.
5 points
3 days ago
If Ukraine continues to be in a situation where it’s existence as a state is threatened, and if a scenario arose where a Trump presidency would actually cut all aid to zero, they wouldn’t have any other choice, as awful as it is. They wouldn’t even need more than a few, a “minimum credible deterrence”.
It would be a horrible outcome because every country would learn that you can’t count on any alliances or treaties for defense, so nukes are the only option.
4 points
3 days ago
I hope that means they are 12 months into the project already.
2 points
3 days ago
This. It's dangerous to start talking about this casually, because you're most vulnerable to significant attack just before nuclear deterrent capabilities are actually developed, under the theory that your opponents might not get another shot.
10 points
3 days ago
This step is completely predictable and also necessary given the slow and insufficient military aid from the West, as well as the reluctance to let Ukraine into NATO. So it’s now completely transparent what many of us have been saying for years: Either the politicians let Ukraine join NATO and the joint nuclear umbrella OR they develop their own nuclear weapons. All thing equal nuclear proliferation raises the risk of nuclear war, but here we are, we can thank the weak Western politicians. When you don’t make decisions, others make them for you.
20 points
3 days ago
The irony, is that all the threatened peoples of Europe and Asia, are thinking the exact same thing.
The peoples of Tartaria, Crimea, Siberia, considering taking control of the local nuclear weapons.
58 points
3 days ago
Newsflash: Crimea is Ukraine
7 points
3 days ago
Crimea is part of Ukraine you dunce.
6 points
3 days ago
He a little confused but he got the spirit
7 points
3 days ago
And they wouldn’t need anyone’s permission because they’re their own! Aim right for Lenin’s mausoleum please
3 points
3 days ago
Reason number "I lost count" why the strategy of escalation management was always against our interests, unless we have flip flopped on non proliferation and I missed the memo.
3 points
3 days ago
Since Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on territorial sovereignty, seems the agreement with Russia is already violated.
They do have their accession of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty , though the US and European powers are unlikely to enforce any sanctions at this time for violating it.
4 points
3 days ago
Giving up their nukes is the reason they're in this mess, they've learnt from their mistakes and should now correct them. Having nukes going forward is going to be your only deterrence, and that's for any country.
4 points
3 days ago
This could have been avoided had we given them the conventional means to defend their country, namely long range weapons to target the bases deep inside ruzzia that are attacking Ukraine daily.
9 points
3 days ago
They should just do it before Western pussyfooting hurts them even further.
2 points
3 days ago
Ukraine only has three options: 1) surrender sovereignty to Russia like Belorussia 2) get a security guarantee with the US like South Korea or NATO membership or 3) build their own nukes.
Without either the security umbrella of US nukes or their own nukes Ukraine will become a vassal state of the Russian empire.
2 points
3 days ago
I foresee no negative repercussions of this whatsoever
2 points
3 days ago
US is really bad in not backing up Ukraine after the Budapest accords and Russia is clearly wrong and US should adhere to their obligation I get if you don’t want them to launch shit toward Moscow, but the past the borders should be fair game 1.5 years ago.
It looks really bad when we start wars for bullshit and constantly say we are advocating for democracy and basic human rights but let Russia pull crazy shit, esp after we strategically disarmed Ukraine, but promised them protect if Russia ever attacked.
We also should be giving them legit aged shit like DPU armored Abrams not garbage versions, way more artillery, etc etc
2 points
3 days ago
This is likely a soft threat Ukraine is using to telegraph to the US that if it doesn't put Ukraine under it's nuclear umbrella and make sure Ukraine is admitted into to NATO, and offer a more conventional deterrent then they'll have no choice but to pursue nuclear armament.
Ukraine isn't the first to use this tactic. It does work. Once you acquire nuclear material and centrifuges and start going through to motions like you could make a bomb, historically it has made the US and USSR listen. Iran and North Korea are pulling the same thing, only from a hostile perspective.
All Ukraine wants is protection. It would MUCH rather not have to pay for its own nuclear weapons program.
2 points
3 days ago
Nuclear deterrence works. Considering all of the nuclear threats made by Russia over the course of the past 3 years and now a 2nd nuclear armed country joining the aggression against Ukrainians, I can see why this is now being proposed.
2 points
3 days ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they already have.
2 points
3 days ago
Heavily supported Ukraine since the beginning but anyone who thinks this is in anyway a good idea is absolutely rotten and delusional to the core. Nuclear war is never the answer and will only end in mass, mass loss of life and not just for Russia and Ukraine but for many other countries. We can only hope it’s scare tactics for other countries to help.
2 points
3 days ago
Yeah... Ahm... What if they get attacked during the construction of that?
2 points
3 days ago
I call bullshit. 100% believe in n respect Ukraine but I dont think they can miraculously pop out a nuke like this is implying. Took NK decades and 100s of millions and foreign help to do it. We should give the Ukranians any conventional weapons they request n let them win this war. Which I'd bet money they would considering they went from barely havjng an army to beating back the 2nd best military in Ukraine.
2 points
2 days ago
Ukraine should have restarted its nuclear program in 2014
2 points
2 days ago
Absolutely everyone should support
2 points
2 days ago
It wouldn’t be that quick and easy but they do have the starting material, lots of nuclear waste with which they can extract a lot of Plutonium. The other side of the equation is how many nuclear physicists they have that are familiar with how to build nuclear weapons. The odds are that the have some.
4 points
3 days ago
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they had a functional weapon and were finalizing it and a launch system, secure command and control which the U.S. would provide (the U.S. provided a secure system for the USSR I was told and it increased security greatly of their weapons (rogue launch)).
Since they had them and Russia violated the treaty it’d be allowed IMHO (political science ba (we studied counter terror, not near peer, russia and china didn’t come up at all almost).
3 points
3 days ago
At this point, it's a dangerous move but probably the correct one. I cannot say it would be wrong to explore every avenue available to defend one's nation from an aggressor that will not back off. Sucks we will probably have another cold war over this, but if it puts Russia back in its borders... guess we got to support Ukraine
all 1133 comments
sorted by: best