Large parts of USSR’s missile and nuclear weapons programs - research and manufacture - were based in Ukraine. Missile capacities were very much in use until few weeks ago. Ukraine was involved in missile and civilian rocket productions for various countries, including west and far east.
Nuclear program was suspended but capacity could be reactivated in a reasonably short time.
Current Russian operations are largely aimed at diminishing those production capacities - that is why there is no occupation of cities (outside of Donbass) and destruction of infrastructure.
Russia has made enormous progress in all aspects of life since the time Putin came to power. That includes life expectancy. More than doubled GDP/capita. Military advances way beyond west and China.
Most importantly, he has improved self-respect of Russian Nation.
Unlike western societies, Russians have full understanding and respect for centralized power and rulers. Since the beginning of the empire Russian rulers understand that their position is one of responsibility, not of privilege.
Those are facts of history.
Russia is such a large country with almost unlimited ressources. But a large part of the population are still living in poverty. Few people grapped the accests of the country by pure greed, which just prove that communism don’t work. USSR dissolved itselves. The lack of trust you demonstrate, is the Achilles heel of Russian thinking as it was also the basis for killing half of the officeres I the 1930ies.
And for that, there is no other to blame than Russia itselves. So god luck with selling the gas to Your new friends in China.
What a somber 9th may it will be in Moscow, as Russia are now more and more acting as their WW2 foe. I suggest we in this forum spend the 9th of May by celebrating the bravery of the Ukraine forces.
You may actually believe that but I don’t think that I would have lived as long as I have if I were under the autocratic rule of Putin.
I would never be able to play the good drone and fall in line and would most likely have been killed off directly or in one of the reeducation camps
And you are right that in the west we have no respect for centralized power because most of us do not think that is a centralized power is a good thing.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
The Russian propaganda may show some you an image of responsibility but the image we see in the west of Putin and his “friends” is privilege and corruption
Respect is something You earn by your acts. Respect can not be bought, Respect can not be achieved by threats and You cannot beat someone into respecting You. Now Russia have lost all repect that was left. We don’t want be friends with You anymore, and meet you in any sport or cultural event.
It will take you at least a decade or two to regain any respect, if you started to back up this day. For each day the war goes on, it will take another year.
That is so typical of outdated western-centric views on the world - Russians would say Westernites.
Russia and Putin have, indeed, earned respect for standing against world’s hegemony, for patiently restoring its power, improving well-being of its people, but also working with and helping others.
Based on some data, your view is shared by increasing minority of the world, by area and as population.
Ok, once more you spew a bunch of nonsense claims without providing references to your source material.
Missile capabilites are not the same as nuclear capabilities. You need the former for the latter, but just having missile capabilities, such as shown by the sinking of the Moskva does not mean you have nuclear capabilities.
Many of the USSR’s nuclear programs and arms were indeed based in the Ukrainian SSR. After the collapse of the union, the newly erected state of Ukraine had to find out what to do with these.
Command and Control of the Ukrainian Nuclear Arsenal however was in Russian hands and while they may have been able to back-engineer access to them, this was not a trivial undertaking (Pikayev, 1994)
In the end, the four nuclear successor states to the USSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazachstan and Russia came to an agreement in the Budapest Memorandum that the first three would dismantle their nuclear arsenal or sent it back to Russia for dismantling. With it, they became non-nuclear states parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
That’s the end of the story really, by 1996 all warheads had been removed and returned to Russia (Hans M. Kristensen, Alicia Godsberg, Jonathon Garbose, “Ukraine Special Weapons,” Nuclear Information Project: Federation of American Scientists, www.fas.org). If you have any reasonable information that this never happened or that they secretly developed new weapons, we would like to hear them. Otherwise you should stop throwing around these baseless claims that serve as Russian propaganda.
BTW, I highly recommend you read the link to the Budapest Memorandum in particular. The first two articles stick out in particular: that Russia recognizes the territorial of integrity and borders of Ukraine at the time (inlcuding Crimea and Donbass) and that Russia won’t use force or even the threat of force and that their weapons won’t be used against Ukraine except for self-defence or otherwise in accordance to the UN charter. Russia has broken this commitment on two counts, Ukraine has not.
Budapest Memorandum has as its basis Helsinki Final Act.
As discussed before, Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe - Helsinki Act/Declaration, was already largely dead in 1994 due to unilateral changes to boundaries of Yugoslavia, and definitely from 1999 due to NATO aggression on Yugoslavia and occupation of Kosovo and Metohija.
NATO and western countries have created precedents that Russia is now using.
As mentioned before Ukraine has threatened that it will acquire nuclear capabilities.
I am not privy of details but capabilities of delivery modes (missiles) are/were obviously there, so were capabilities and resources to create nuclear warheads.
Geo-strategic position of Ukraine has serious impact on Russian strategic defense - A2AD
That makes threats of existential level for Russia.
Does it matter if those threats were not imminent? How long should have Russia waited? What does it mean for Europe that Russia’s response time could be reduced to few minutes?
Oh Jesus grow up. Russia’s response time has been a few minutes for decades. This is always factored into response plans.
Washington DC is 6 minutes by sub launched missile. I think Moscow might be as much as 9 minutes from submarine.
Neither of these numbers have changed the way we live. Civilians don’t care and Military just deal with it. You can draw as many circles on a map as you want and it doesn’t change any of that.
You make the assumption that Ukraine can just turn a switch and have Nuclear weapons. Why don’t you check with Iran about how difficult that is. I think they can tell you it’s not easy and also it is not something you can do in secret.
All your circles on a map are totally meaningless. How many of those targets have been hit by conventional weapons? How many long range missiles have crossed Russia’s borders? Your circles are nothing but meaningless hysteria.
The 1975 Helsinki accords, not treaty btw was an agreement that talked about inviability of frontiers. In 1994 Russia guaranteed Ukrainian borders in exchange for the return of all their Nuclear weapons. You then move on to claim that NATO actions in Yugoslavia in 1999 invalidated both agreements. In essence you claim that NATO altered borders in Yugoslavia makes it ok for Russia to attack Ukraine over and over whenever they feel they can seize more territory.
Putin is an evil sociopath. The only difference between he and Stalin is that Stalin was better at it than he was. They both use the exact same arguments that the outside world wants to destroy us so we have to strike out. And you wonder why the west holds you in contempt. The Russian people deserve better leadership but until you get it just keep playing the same old song about the big bad bogeyman while blowing up civilians.
Two notes about this comment. I assume you mean the Helsinki Accords of 1975. First of all these were non-binding meaning that you can violate the spirit, but its violation doesn’t bring any other repercussions. Secondly, I doubt they were even violated at all. Yugoslavia went through a violent civil war from which new states were erected. It was not a conflict between sovereign states that resulted in one taking land from the other.
The Budapest Memorandum however was very much an international treaty. The kind you don’t breach. Whenever it is brought up against Russia they will either bring up some bullshit reason Ukraine or the US violated it first or that the treaty is null and void to begin with. All to distract from the fact that they are clearly violating it themselves.
That NATO countries have created precedents which Russia is now using does not mean that Russia’s use is right or not as bad. It simply means another shitty thing is happening to the world.
Joining a defensive pact is not a provocation. As stated before, Russia does not go over the foreign policy of sovereign countries. They agreed to as much in the same Budapest Memorandum. The threat to obtain nukes has to be seen into context. First it is made against Germany and the US, not against Russia. Basically, they are calling on them to honour their protection commitments made in the same Memorandum. The sentiment here is that if apparently nobody is willing to maintain the commitments made there then why should Ukraine still uphold theirs.
Despite some rethoric here, there is no evidence to support that Ukraine has ever gone over to action in pursuing nuclear weapons. There is still no basis for a full-blown military operation against some insinuations.
How about the existential threat Russia poses to Ukraine? Look at your map, Russia has completely surrounded them.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
It would appear that if Helsinki Act is rendered irrelevant so is Budapest Memorandum. I could be wrong, but here we are.
As I said, NATO stopped being defensive organization on the night of March 24, 1999 when first missiles landed on Yugoslavia.
It was one of reasons Putin presented before operation started. This was preceded by intensive activity between world leaders and Russians, as well as Russian proposals from December.
