Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday he would tolerate no corruption or treachery in affairs of state while his country is struggling to find the means to defend itself against Russian invaders.
There was no threat made. Even if Ukraine had entered into NATO, NATO had made no noise about stationing nukes in Ukraine. It could well have kept the status of the Baltic states where they don’t have nukes stationed there. There’s really no strategic value to NATO to do so. That was an excuse made up by the Kremlin.
Zelensky did not ask for pre-emptive nukes against Russia. That was an erroneous English translation. And I said NATO had made no noise about stationing nuclear weapons. For that matter, it’s a bit of a reach to say that Ukraine is requesting that nuclear weapons be stationed on its territory, but rather that it gave up nuclear weapons in return for an agreement that Russia has now breached.
Look back at the quote in that article. He’s not talking about wanting nuclear weapons. He’s talking about entering into NATO with its Article 5 protections because the Budapest Memorandum has failed.
Beginning:
I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Article 5 will be more effective than the Budapest Memorandum.
End:
If they [Budapest Memorandum consultations] do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.
Putin and the Kremlin then twisted those words into nukes, when Zelensky explicitly only wants to replace the failed Budapest Memorandum protections with Article 5 protections. Despite all of Putin’s bluster, he knows damn well the US isn’t going to help Ukraine obtain nukes. The US, the Soviet Union, and other nuclear powers have gone to considerable lengths to avoid nuclear proliferation.
Refuting a poor translation is not “copium”. The original Ukrainian did not have the English connotations of nuclear weapons, but was more along the lines of general preemptive actions.
I’d encourage you to expound on this in your original comment, rather than start off with something inflammatory. It doesn’t promote an interesting discussion.
Removed by mod
What nuclear capability does Ukraine have currently?
Removed by mod
There was no threat made. Even if Ukraine had entered into NATO, NATO had made no noise about stationing nukes in Ukraine. It could well have kept the status of the Baltic states where they don’t have nukes stationed there. There’s really no strategic value to NATO to do so. That was an excuse made up by the Kremlin.
Removed by mod
Zelensky did not ask for pre-emptive nukes against Russia. That was an erroneous English translation. And I said NATO had made no noise about stationing nuclear weapons. For that matter, it’s a bit of a reach to say that Ukraine is requesting that nuclear weapons be stationed on its territory, but rather that it gave up nuclear weapons in return for an agreement that Russia has now breached.
Removed by mod
Look back at the quote in that article. He’s not talking about wanting nuclear weapons. He’s talking about entering into NATO with its Article 5 protections because the Budapest Memorandum has failed.
Beginning:
End:
Putin and the Kremlin then twisted those words into nukes, when Zelensky explicitly only wants to replace the failed Budapest Memorandum protections with Article 5 protections. Despite all of Putin’s bluster, he knows damn well the US isn’t going to help Ukraine obtain nukes. The US, the Soviet Union, and other nuclear powers have gone to considerable lengths to avoid nuclear proliferation.
Refuting a poor translation is not “copium”. The original Ukrainian did not have the English connotations of nuclear weapons, but was more along the lines of general preemptive actions.
Removed by mod
I’d encourage you to expound on this in your original comment, rather than start off with something inflammatory. It doesn’t promote an interesting discussion.
Removed by mod