The Destruction Of Ukraine's Nuclear Arsenal

[Westphalian]

Rogue Yvalley:

The terms of a negotiated peace will be determined by the two states in the bilateral agreement. Getting the talks started is more important than listing demands before any negotiation starts. It may very well be the case that Ukrainian negotiators finally opt to cede Crimea back to Russia as part of a peace deal. That is a matter to be determined by Ukrainian and Russian negotiators and statesmen/women. Third-party positions are only tangentially relevant. But in order to level the negotiation table, Ukraine needs to be as dangerous to Russia as Russia is dangerous to Ukraine. Thus the possibility of Ukrainian nuclear rearmament is a necessity if Russia stonewalls or tries to further bully Ukraine with threats of or real military force.

As Westphalian will no doubt object, citing the issue of nuclear proliferation, I will proactively point out that Ukraine was a nuclear-armed state and thus Ukraine rearming itself with nuclear weapons is not proliferation but a return to the pre-Budapest Memoranda status it held before the deal was struck. Since Russia made the deal null and void with its military seizure of Crimea and its military interference in the Donbas, Ukraine is no longer bound by the terms of the memoranda and is free to rearm legally. If Russia interferes with Ukraine's defensive nuclear rearmament by overt military or covert military means then that unmasks Russia as a clear and present danger to regional and world peace; which will trigger a massive political and military realignment by Europe, North America and hopefully a prudent Eurasia to a much more confrontational pre-war footing which could easily escalate to open conflict and even thermonuclear war. Westphalian will no doubt ask, "Is Ukraine worth such a risk to world peace?" The honest answer is no. But shutting down the growing Russian reliance on militarism and disruptive hybrid-warfare is worth the risk, as is shutting down the Western reliance on militarism. But the West is second on the list because right now Russia is pushing too hard and too fast. When that's sorted then the focus shifts to Washington, London and Paris and then finally to Beijing, Taipei, and Tokyo.

The time for allowing war is past. Now it's ultimately world peace or global oblivion as the final binary choice. The new enemy is war itself and the men and women who promote it and supply it with flesh, technology, arms and munitions.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Your argument is badly flawed and riddled with contradictions. I highlight just one. But of course, Ukraine is a signatory to NPT. It isn't suddenly free to ignore it as you claim.

Then there's the concept of 'defensive nuclear re-armament'. I'm sure that all states could claim that as justification.

Then there's the strange claim that if Russia were to pre-emptively destroy Ukraine's nuclear proliferation then Russia would be exposed as a 'danger to world peace' :doh. I might point out that the West has already shot that bolt with its hate rhetoric. Then of course the world may remember Israel's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, or the US threats to do the same on Iran and DPRK.

Frankly ER, your argument is so riddled with holes that it needs serious re-thinking.

 

[Evilroddy]

It wasn't actually a rebuttal at all.


The Ukrainian SSR was part of the Soviet Union, a state run essentially by Russia. Why you omitted this salient fact is something only you can answer.

Both the Russian SSR and the Ukranian SSR were sovereign states as were all the republics in the Soviet Union. That is why Nikita Khrushchev had to formally transfer the territory to Ukraine from Russia. The fact that Khrushchev was a Russian leader makes the transfer even stronger in its weight as he was not compelled to do so by divided loyalties. A choice was made by senior Russian Authorities to transfer the Crimean Oblast to the Ukrainian SSR. The choice was not made by Ukrainians, Tartars, Siberians, Khazaks, Turkomenmen, Geirgians or anyone else. It was a Russian decision and once made Russia was bound to honour that decision in good faith. It did not. So now Russia and Ukraine will reap the bitter harvest of protracted and escalating conflict until both sides have bled and died enough to talk and deal rather than kill and maim. Until that new viewpoint is arrived at many more innocents will die, and for what? Lines on a map? To honour an imperial history on the one hand and an imaginary future on the other? To have a traditional Black Sea port that could be rebuilt somewhere else on the Black Sea? All are stupid reasons, despite the gymnastic justifications of both sides, to kill people and to destroy cities and farmlands.

Peace is the future, not war. The only question is will Russians and Ukrainians live in a more cooperative and prosperous peace beside each other or will they rest in peace amidst the ruins of war in the mass graves dug out by the ultimate weapons of modern war. You folks are in the driver's seats in this conflict so you better do some hard thinking with the rational parts of your brains before your mid-brains get you all killed.

The image of to shock-addled rams banging their horned-heads together in mindless contest can also be a metaphor for two sub-critical fissionable masses being smashed together in order to trigger a fusion bomb. Neither collision is smart to embark upon. So both sides need to smarten up and stop with the military brinksmanship. Talk don't balk.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Rogue Yvalley:

The terms of a negotiated peace will be determined by the two states in the bilateral agreement.

I'm fairly certain you've heard of the legal term "making someone whole again"? This legal concept applies across a broad spectrum of intentional and unintentional wrongs.

My Post #21 is nothing more than that, with the expected addition of compensatory damages for items that cannot be made whole again.

 

[Rogue Valley]

So now Russia and Ukraine will reap the bitter harvest of protracted and escalating conflict until both sides have bled and died enough to talk and deal rather than kill and maim. Until that new viewpoint is arrived at many more innocents will die, and for what? Lines on a map?

Yes, lines on a map. The gas/oil fields off Crimea are worth trillions to Ukraine's economy. With these lines returned, Ukraine could be energy self-sufficient and no longer held hostage by Russia for her energy needs. This is not a trifling matter of abstract "lines"

Plus, Ukraine has two well developed ports (Mariupol and Berdyansk) on the Sea of Azov that are virtually worthless now. It costs extra money to ship these port items by road from Odesa to the east. The minimization of two viable seaports harms the port cities, shipping costs are increased, and the Ukraine economy in-toto also suffers. All because of lines as you say.

I ask you to examing things carefully rather than looking at it superficially from a totally divorced viewpoint.

These are 44 million real people that are trying very hard to make the difficult transition from the Russian empire to Europe. Lines matter.

 

[Westphalian]

Both the Russian SSR and the Ukranian SSR were sovereign states as were all the republics in the Soviet Union. .

Total nonsense. What planet?


They were not 'sovereign states' in any meaningful sense. You even contradict your analysis since Krushchev made the transfer in his role as First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. If the Russian SSR was sovereign, then it would have needed to make the transfer not Kruschev.

 

[Evilroddy]

Your argument is badly flawed and riddled with contradictions. I highlight just one. But of course, Ukraine is a signatory to NPT. It isn't suddenly free to ignore it as you claim.

Then there's the concept of 'defensive nuclear re-armament'. I'm sure that all states could claim that as justification.

Then there's the strange claim that if Russia were to pre-emptively destroy Ukraine's nuclear proliferation then Russia would be exposed as a 'danger to world peace' :doh. I might point out that the West has already shot that bolt with its hate rhetoric. Then of course the world may remember Israel's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, or the US threats to do the same on Iran and DPRK.

Frankly ER, your argument is so riddled with holes that it needs serious re-thinking.

Westphalian:

Article X of the NPT would allow Ukraine to legally withdraw from the treaty and 90 days later rearm itself with nuclear weapons, so your point is moot as Ukraine can become legally free to rearm with nuclear weapons after a three month period.

All non-first strike strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems are weapons of deterrence and thus are defensive weapons. Their purpose is to be never used in anger but to deter other from using similar weapons on the possessing state. Most states that seek nuclear weapons today are seeking them to protect themselves from superpower military intervention and not to destroy their neighbours. Therefore they are predominantly defensive weapons. Second point shot down if you will excuse the military metaphor.

Look up proliferation. Ukraine was already a nuclear armed state -you lot are responsible for that historical fact. Returning to a nuclear armed status is not proliferation if the total number of nuclear warheads of comparable strength does not increase. Thus if Russia's potential enemies reduce their stock piles of weapons by the same amount as Ukaraine builds/receives then there is no proliferation.

Since Russia started this conflict by interfering militarily in Ukraine and seizing the Crimea to boot, the responsibility for the conflict is Russia (the aggressor). You took the action which freed Ukraine from its treaty obligations to remain denuclearised as a military power. So the argument that you are justified in pre-emptively attacking a rearming Ukraine when you knowingly took the military action which both made that rearmament necessary and legal is absurd. That is like a bully claiming justification that he is pre-emptively kicking the stuffing out of weaker kids because they have taken up weight training and an exercise regime. News flash - it's still bullying. Russia created the military conditions under which Ukraine finds itself required to rearm itself and Russia can thus reverse those conditions without resorting to more military action making Ukrainian rearmament (including nuclear rearmament) unnecessary. Thus your third point is now swirling down the rhetorical toilet as poopycock.

As to hate rhetoric, there's enough of that for blame on both/all sides of the Ukrainian conflict. But Russia escalated from hate rhetoric to force of arms when it invaded Crimea and militarily destabilised the Donbas, so with respect to Ukraine, you're in a league of your own for bellicose behaviour. Fourth point dealt with.

Shall we continue?

The only grounds you have supporting and justifying Russia's military action in Ukraine is the "might is right" argument and that one is currently out of favour and discredited since 1948.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Westphalian]

Westphalian:

Article X of the NPT would allow Ukraine to legally withdraw from the treaty and 90 days later rearm itself with nuclear weapons, so your point is moot as Ukraine can become legally free to rearm with nuclear weapons after a three month period.

All non-first strike strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems are weapons of deterrence and thus are defensive weapons. Their purpose is to be never used in anger but to deter other from using similar weapons on the possessing state. Most states that seek nuclear weapons today are seeking them to protect themselves from superpower military intervention and not to destroy their neighbours. Therefore they are predominantly defensive weapons. Second point shot down if you will excuse the military metaphor.

Look up proliferation. Ukraine was already a nuclear armed state -you lot are responsible for that historical fact. Returning to a nuclear armed status is not proliferation if the total number of nuclear warheads of comparable strength does not increase. Thus if Russia's potential enemies reduce their stock piles of weapons by the same amount as Ukaraine builds/receives then there is no proliferation.

Since Russia started this conflict by interfering militarily in Ukraine and seizing the Crimea to boot, the responsibility for the conflict is Russia (the aggressor). You took the action which freed Ukraine from its treaty obligations to remain denuclearised as a military power. So the argument that you are justified in pre-emptively attacking a rearming Ukraine when you knowingly took the military action which both made that rearmament necessary and legal is absurd. That is like a bully claiming justification that he is pre-emptively kicking the stuffing out of weaker kids because they have taken up weight training and an exercise regime. News flash - it's still bullying. Russia created the military conditions under which Ukraine finds itself required to rearm itself and Russia can thus reverse those conditions without resorting to more military action making Ukrainian rearmament (including nuclear rearmament) unnecessary. Thus your third point is now swirling down the rhetorical toilet as poopycock.

As to hate rhetoric, there's enough of that for blame on both/all sides of the Ukrainian conflict. But Russia escalated from hate rhetoric to force of arms when it invaded Crimea and militarily destabilised the Donbas, so with respect to Ukraine, you're in a league of your own for bellicose behaviour. Fourth point dealt with.

Shall we continue?

The only grounds you have supporting and justifying Russia's military action in Ukraine is the "might is right" argument and that one is currently out of favour and discredited since 1948.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

:lamo


I don't mean to be rude, but seriously?


As for the rest of your argument, it's more that you're making a case for global nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine should do it, then so should every other state that wants to.


You talk about peace but prescribe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Evilroddy]

Total nonsense. What planet?


They were not 'sovereign states' in any meaningful sense. You even contradict your analysis since Krushchev made the transfer in his role as First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. If the Russian SSR was sovereign, then it would have needed to make the transfer not Kruschev.

Westphalian:

If I recall correctly in 1944 the USSR made amendments to the All-Union Constitution which allowed for Republic-level commissariats for foreign affairs and defense, allowing them to be recognized as de jure independent states in international law. At the same time the USSR created separate branches of the Red Army for each Soviet Republic giving them more de facto independence. This allowed for two Soviet Republics, Ukraine and Byelorussia, in addition to the USSR as a whole to join, be recognised and sit in the United Nations General Assembly as founding members after 1945.

This sovereignty drive was further expanded in the 1977 amendments to the All-Union Constitution IIRC. So legally the 15 republics of the USSR were sovereign republics in 1944 with growing sovereignty until perestroika unraveled the USSR in the late 1980's and early 1990's. So this planet, not nonsense and legally sound despite the political dominance and bullying of Russians over their neighbouring republics in the USSR.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

:lamo


I don't mean to be rude, but seriously?


As for the rest of your argument, it's more that you're making a case for global nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine should do it, then so should every other state that wants to.


You talk about peace but prescribe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It's not proliferation if a state already had nuclear weapons and the total number of nuclear warheads remains constant. But all this can be avoided if Russia agrees to join Ukraine at the table and negotiate in good faith without any preconditions until the two powers can come to an agreement that both states don't like but that both can live with. Live being the operative word.

Peace can be arrived at and achieved by many means and some may seem counter-intuitive to you perhaps.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Westphalian]

It's not proliferation if a state already had nuclear weapons and the total number of nuclear warheads remains constant. But all this can be avoided if Russia agrees to join Ukraine at the table and negotiate in good faith without any preconditions until the two powers can come to an agreement that both states don't like but that both can live with. Live being the operative word.

Peace can be arrived at and achieved by many means and some may seem counter-intuitive to you perhaps.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You've already seen your American friend RV's interpretation of that.


But look, whilst I agree that ultimately such a situation is the way forward (if genuinely without pre-conditions), your linkage of it to Ukrainian's nuclear re-armament is a total nonsense within the context and spirit of parties supposedly wanting peace.

Your logic requires the world to turn on its head and see the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a good thing, although presumably only for a nazi infested bankrupt state like Ukraine :doh.

 

[Chagos]

You've already seen your American friend RV's interpretation of that.


But look, whilst I agree that ultimately such a situation is the way forward (if genuinely without pre-conditions), your linkage of it to Ukrainian's nuclear re-armament is a total nonsense within the context and spirit of parties supposedly wanting peace.

Your logic requires the world to turn on its head and see the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a good thing, although presumably only for a nazi infested bankrupt state like Ukraine :doh.

Your logic requires to believe that the best peace is achieved by one party holding the big stick while the other cringes at the sight of it.

Whether I share into any enthusiasm over Ukraine being re-armed is another matter altogether, but I'm certainly not going to address it with someone posting such nonsense as the above.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They were not 'sovereign states' in any meaningful sense. You even contradict your analysis since Krushchev made the transfer in his role as First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. If the Russian SSR was sovereign, then it would have needed to make the transfer not Kruschev.

Below is the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet publishing the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR (Russia) to the Ukrainian SSR (Ukraine).

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's not proliferation if a state already had nuclear weapons and the total number of nuclear warheads remains constant. But all this can be avoided if Russia agrees to join Ukraine at the table and negotiate in good faith without any preconditions until the two powers can come to an agreement that both states don't like but that both can live with. Live being the operative word.

Peace can be arrived at and achieved by many means and some may seem counter-intuitive to you perhaps.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

17 January 2019. Imagesat International.

Iskander nuclear-capable missile staging base at Krasnodar, 270 miles from Ukraine. This missile system has a range of 310+ miles, is mobile, and is an existential threat to Ukraine.

 

[Evilroddy]

17 January 2019. Imagesat International.

Iskander nuclear-capable missile staging base at Krasnodar, 270 miles from Ukraine. This missile system has a range of 310+ miles, is mobile, and is an existential threat to Ukraine.

Rogue Valley:

OK? I'm a bit confused by this post as a response to my earlier comments. I think that it is unnecessary to prove that Russia under Mr. Putin is an existential threat to Ukraine (even without factoring in nuclear weapons) but if you wish to make the point, then I accept that as a given. Russia is an existential threat to many countries as are the U.S.A., the U.K., France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Noth Korea and any other state or non-state actors which possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them abroad.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.