http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041202752.html

Good move.

Is he their "Ted Cruz?"

Cruz, a member of the Republican Party headed by Mitch McConnell, a candidate struggling to retain his seat.

Neither sentence tells me if the person in question is a crazy person spouting off whack-job rhetoric to whip up support, or if he represents the mainstream thinking on the matter at hand.

I still don't know if this guy is their "Ted Cruz" or if he is someone worth listening to. Sadly, knowing that he is a member of a party that is fielding a presidential candidate doesn't provide me with the information.

There will be no nuclear exchange over this.
That is fucking madness.

It would take years for Ukaine to do all the things necessary for building a nuclear bomb--and that's if they have the expertise and can buck international public opinion and pressure.

It's rhetoric, which is pretty pointless against some people.

Ukraine was a center for Soviet nuclear weapons production and they still have a large pool of engineers who are not only knowledgeable about nuclear weapons, but experienced in building them. Even today, Ukraine is one of the worlds top 10 uranium producers, and ALL of their Soviet-era nuclear power plants are capable of rapidly producing weapons-grade uranium.

You are only correct in that it would "take years". It would probably take Ukraine about two years to put together a fully functional and deliverable nuclear bomb, simply because organizing and coordinating the startup of the program would take a bit of time.

Their biggest issue would probably be the Russians. I see LOTS of assassinations in Ukraine if they tried to go nuclear.

I wonder if we will treat Ukraine the way we have done Iran and North Korea? They are clearly threatening to build and use nuclear weapons against Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council no less. This is not an empty threat. Ukraine has the technical skill and fissionable materials needed to build a bomb very quickly indeed. They even have delivery systems already in place.

Don't we have an international responsibility to do something which will stop them from taking the whole World to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe?

And I sympathize with Ukraine in this.

Seriously.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

There has to be a limit to this pervasive, head-over-heels, unconditional love affair for the fascists and technocrats who have seized power in Kiev! We have to at least recognize how dangerous those people can be unless they are restrained.

and criminals...

they traded one corrupt government for another corrupt government
the old being a centrist/corporatist government.. the 'new' some flavor of right wing nationalist nuttery


I feel for the people of Ukraine.. but they should have paid better attention to the folks leading these protests.. there was a reason they were going after statues of lenin (and it wasn't to insult Russia as some folks here think and im sure folks there who weren't extremists assumed.. Russia doesn't care about lenin anymore.. just like china doesn't care about mao).. it was to slap leftists in the face. i was shocked to find a few folks on DU celebrating their destruction when this all first started to happen...
and I get it, I do .. I don't like putin either.. and what he did by moving troops into that region is wrong..
but that doesn't change the fact that this was an attempted take over by extremist right wing groups..
and I think crimea should have the right to separate if it wishes .. they didn't elect the government in charge now in kiev after all.. but I think a vote should only occur while NOT under an occupation by a foreign nation. how could you possibly have a fair vote with that going on?

We broke our treaty agreements to not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine when we manipulated and encouraged the protest movement on the streets of Kiev. What Victoria Nuland, our Ambassador to Ukraine and other of our agents did was a serious breach of international treaties we had signed. Picking who will be the new leader of another nation is an affront to the very principles of democracy.

What Russia did was respond to our original violation of the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. When we complain about Russia's actions in Crimea, we are just "The pot calling the kettle black."

He got a shower of rotten eggs in Kharkiv today. Pulled out his umbrella for "ballistic missile defense".

"Moscow (dpa) - Ukrainian presidential candidate Vladimir Klitschko was attacked with eggs, stones and fireworks by pro-Russian protesters while campaigning in the north-eastern city of Kharkiv.

Bodyguards used umbrellas to shield Klitschko, who finished his speech."

The U.S. has no obligation to get involved.

While it may be true that the Budapest Agreement did not obligate the US/UK to intervene militarily to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity, the language has to mean something. At this point, it seems to mean 'a strongly worded diplomatic cable'. Somehow I don't think that was what the Ukrainians thought they were getting.

I actually don't blame Ukraine from at least contemplating going nuclear again. If anything, what this crisis has shown is that nuclear nations attacking/annexing a non-nuclear nation will not have any meaningful pushback from the world community.

If Ukraine still had it's nuclear weapons, do you think Russia would have taken the Crimea?

And we shouldn't intervene. We have enormous problems here at home, and we should stay out of it. (Having said that, I am no fan of Putin, and I have no problem with sanctions against Russia).

to intervene.

I do think that if I was a non-nuclear nation and had the technical ability to produce nukes, I would seriously consider it. I am thinking of Japan, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, and others. Not that I LIKE if those nations were to go nuclear, but I certainly would understand the motivations to after the last month.

Russia is much more integrated with the world economy than during the Soviet days. There is a lot the West could do to squeeze Russia short of military action. But they don't appear to want to do much at this time - God forbid any blowback would hurt their wallet, "guarantee" be damned.

So let any other country who is thinking of developing nukes to protect themselves remember what happen to the "guarantee" given to Ukraine to disarm should they get the same offer.

The flaccid western response sets back nuclear disarmament efforts much.

You guarantee them protection, and then you turn the place into a political football.

There is a lot the west could do without military action.

Besides, what good is a guarantee if it obligates you to do nothing to keep you end of the deal?

This should ring a few alarm bells about the coup and the new government.

The Guardian UK doesn't seem to think so.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia

Excerpt:

When things turned nasty in Kiev as armed protesters, some of them with fascist insignia, seized control of government buildings, the police cracked down, and snipers gunned down police and protesters in the streets. But who exactly were these snipers? The Estonian foreign minister, Urmas Paet, not a natural ally of Moscow, thought it was at least credible that they belonged to the anti-government Maidan protesters. "Gosh!" said the EU's Lady Ashton in a leaked phone call.

For a moment, the frothing stopped and a truce was negotiated, with the help of Poland, Germany and France, and supported by the US, Russia and the Kiev protesters, all realising that things had gone too far. The agreement allowed for a return to the old constitution, and new elections. Order was restored. Phew!

But this compromise was quickly sabotaged by extreme elements among the protesters, including some sinister far-right elements who are now a de facto part of the government. They pre-empted the outcome of the elections by continuing the occupations and installing themselves in power. (But it's OK: it's not a coup, because they are pro-west.) The Russians were alarmed. What was the point of negotiating, if the agreements were not respected, the Russian interior minister demanded to know.

Edit: but you never know these days, look at McCain, for example.

He will put nucular weopons back in that country.

Even if the nuclear powers went along, it requires a huge infrastructure to build, maintain and deliver nuclear weapons. That would take a lot of money, among other things. That doesn't seem likely, for a country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Hey.

That we took away nuclear...

If only they knew the great powers would not guarantee their security.

Not a rule, but it makes a great heuristic, almost never wrong.

they don't still have nuclear weapons? Has this been carried out and confirmed that we know of? They had nukes and made a pact to give them up... do we know it was completed? We have reason to think it's been completed but what do we know?

If you ask me to guess, they have what they need for their nuclear power plants, and that's it.

But that's plenty.

And I would think it likely that somebody or other has kept tabs on that, the NPT enforcement people.

they would lack the necessary defense systems to block immediate retaliation.

The mere suggestion by "a member of the Ukraine parliament" may convey their general level of intelligence : about the same as a daisy.

Plus they could hope that the US SBIRS system is as good as it probably is and would stop retaliation from the sky. Hopefully they're not getting shitty advice like that from the State Department. "Hey, you can build nukes, why don't mention that fact?"