Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine: NYT !!

[jllundqu]

NYT has a paywall but a paragraph reads:

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. THat would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications."

[Snowball]

That sentence is a lie, because they want us to think two things

1) Ukraine's weapons were taken from it
2) We have them

In reality, they NEVER WERE "Ukraine's". They were Soviet and Russia had the rights of ownership because Russia was the seat of the USSR, and Ukraine was not even a country at all. Moreover, it was US who demanded this, because WE didn't want the new country to have its own nukes.

All were dismantled (although black-market suspiscions exist) -- according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Budapest Memorandum.

Now, the people who control the US want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum. Then they want to take the weapons-grade material and assemble new nukes for "Ukraine", and say they are "giving them back".

These people lie about everything because they just don't care what anyone thinks anymore.
They want us to think "Ukraine" has a right to WMD. If they can't own "Ukraine", they want it to be a wasteland.

[WarriorLiberty]

That sentence is a lie, because they want us to think two things

1) Ukraine's weapons were taken from it
2) We have them

In reality, they NEVER WERE "Ukraine's". They were Soviet and Russia had the rights of ownership because Russia was the seat of the USSR, and Ukraine was not even a country at all. Moreover, it was US who demanded this, because WE didn't want the new country to have its own nukes.

All were dismantled (although black-market suspiscions exist) -- according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Budapest Memorandum.

Now, the people who control the US want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum. Then they want to take the weapons-grade material and assemble new nukes for "Ukraine", and say they are "giving them back".

These people lie about everything because they just don't care what anyone thinks anymore.
They want us to think "Ukraine" has a right to WMD. If they can't own "Ukraine", they want it to be a wasteland.

Exactly like what you said and those weapons were really Russian.

They want us to think "Ukraine" has a right to WMD. If they can't own "Ukraine", they want it to be a wasteland

The DeepState only pretends to care about Ukraine because of the trillions of resources that it has.
They dont care about Ukraine or its history.

[69360]

They aren't going to get nukes over there in 2 months, so this is a non-issue.

[oyarde]

id turn a blind eye to new york times being sent to ukraine

[Brian4Liberty]

Report: US and European Officials Discussed Giving Ukraine Nuclear Weapons
Western officials are less concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin will escalate the conflict before Donald Trump takes office
by Kyle Anzalone November 22, 2024

According to the New York Times, US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. The outlet reports that Western officials believe the Kremlin will not significantly escalate the war before Donald Trump is sworn in as President in January.

Following the election of Trump earlier this month, the US and its NATO allies began taking steps to rush weapons to Ukraine and give Kiev the ability to strike targets inside Russian territory with long-range weapons.

American officials who were briefed on the intelligence community’s assessments told the Times that weapons will not alter the challenging situation that Kiev is currently facing. “US spy agencies have assessed that speeding up the provisions of weapons, ammunition and matériel for Ukraine will do little to change the course of the war in the short term,” the Times reports.

Desperate to bolster Ukraine’s standing in the war before the transition of power on January 20, the Biden administration is looking at a range of serious escalations. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.” The article continues, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”
...
More: https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/22/...clear-weapons/

[Brian4Liberty]

That sentence is a lie, because they want us to think two things

1) Ukraine's weapons were taken from it
2) We have them

In reality, they NEVER WERE "Ukraine's". They were Soviet and Russia had the rights of ownership because Russia was the seat of the USSR, and Ukraine was not even a country at all. Moreover, it was US who demanded this, because WE didn't want the new country to have its own nukes.

All were dismantled (although black-market suspiscions exist) -- according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Budapest Memorandum.

Now, the people who control the US want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum. Then they want to take the weapons-grade material and assemble new nukes for "Ukraine", and say they are "giving them back".

These people lie about everything because they just don't care what anyone thinks anymore.
They want us to think "Ukraine" has a right to WMD. If they can't own "Ukraine", they want it to be a wasteland.

Exactly like what you said and those weapons were really Russian.


The DeepState only pretends to care about Ukraine because of the trillions of resources that it has.
They dont care about Ukraine or its history.

While absolutely true that the nukes that used to be in Ukraine were Soviet, and that the US does not have any of those specific nukes, you are not taking into account the inability of NYT writers (and/or their AI helpers) to write a precise or coherent sentence.

What they intended to say was that Ukraine used to have nukes in the past, and that the US is considering giving them nukes again.

[Brian4Liberty]

...

Biden To Send NUKES To Ukraine?

According to a recent New York Times Report, the Biden Administration has discussed the idea of handing nuclear weapons over to Ukraine as it prepares to leave office. And France and the UK are discussing sending TROOPS into Ukraine! Do they really want WWIII? Also today...will Elon buy MSNBC?

[TheCount]

All were dismantled (although black-market suspiscions exist) -- according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Budapest Memorandum.

Now, the people who control the US want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum.

Oh wow, they want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum? That sounds serious.

What were the agreements in the Budapest Memorandum?

[Snowball]

While absolutely true that the nukes that used to be in Ukraine were Soviet, and that the US does not have any of those specific nukes, you are not taking into account the inability of NYT writers (and/or their AI helpers) to write a precise or coherent sentence.

What they intended to say was that Ukraine used to have nukes in the past, and that the US is considering giving them nukes again.

Ukraine never had nukes. The arsenal was always under the control of Moscow, and it was in their agreements between them to be that way.

[Snowball]

Oh wow, they want to renege on the Budapest Memorandum? That sounds serious.

What were the agreements in the Budapest Memorandum?

You know, I was going to paste the whole text but I think you're just clowning around, as usual.

This is no laughing matter. Ukraine's early presidents were anti-war. They were not lunatics, unlike since the Maidan Coup, and neither were Bush, Yeltsin, or even Clinton. Unfortunately, now, we are controlled by lunatics, at least for a while longer, and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is not happening.

When Ukraine became a country it adopted the Lisbon Protocol and that's why, like the other Soviet regions that held nukes, Russia agreed to let them EVEN BE countries at all.

[TheCount]

You know, I was going to paste the whole text but I think you're just clowning around, as usual.

You were about to paste the whole text but then you read the part about Russia agreeing to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territory.

But do go on, you were saying that one of the parties wants to renege on the agreement. And it seems like you thought that would be a bad thing.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZuMe5RvxPQ

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQyduXpm3o

[Snowball]

You were about to paste the whole text but then you read the part about Russia agreeing to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territory.

But do go on, you were saying that one of the parties wants to renege on the agreement. And it seems like you thought that would be a bad thing.

Not really, because there are stipulations, two of them, the one in the 5th section is looser than the first. Self-defense, allies, etc. Also, these stipulations are only about the NPT and Budapest Memoradum's terms, namely that Ukraine be non-nuclear, and the subject we were considering here IS Ukraine going nuclear. Additionally, Ukraine was cooking up WMD in biolabs. Moreover, the Ukrainian government today is ILLEGITIMATE, not only because Zelensky's term is far over, and he declared all politics illegal, but also because there are other agreements that Ukraine has violated between Russia and Ukraine, like the Friendship Treaty. Finally, Ukraine has attacked the Russians in the Donbass and in Odessa and Crimea for a long time. This is self-defense. Crimea is part of Russia, but even before, when Ukraine burned the town hall in Odessa with Russians in it, that was murder, like the 10k+ Russians inside Ukraine they killed before this even started. They never, not for a second, adhered to the Minsk Memorandum of 2014. The Minsk was violated because "Ukraine" didn't want ANY sort of semi-autonomy for Donbass. The semi-autonomy was basically going to be like we have states with governors and legislatures here. That's all. But Ukraine decided to KILL THEM INSTEAD. Then, it MASSED ITS ARMY and started shelling them again before Russia stepped in. Now, Ukraine has attacked Russia so many times that it doesn't matter anyway.

I suppose this means you can consider the Budapest Memorandum, and the Lisbon Protocol dead, but that's up to the US to work in Ukraine, but I would argue it's still illegitimate because Zelensky has violated the Ukrainian consitition many times. Alas, if the US, UK, or Ukrainian junta regime really want nukes, I guess they can TRY to get them in there and fire them at Russia. It would be stupid, they would just be shot down, and if they exploded dirty or otherwise, I guess their rulers can finish the job and wipe out Ukraine. I understand they like things dead if they can't own them. It's what they decided even in 2022 when they left the Istanbul talks after an agreement was reached, because Blackrock tells them what to do, as Blackrock has already stolen all the Ukrainian rebuilding, farm and resource rights.

[TheCount]

Additionally, Ukraine was cooking up WMD in biolabs.

Let's pretend that's true.

Russia, a country which cooks up WMD in biolabs and occasionally uses them to kill people it doesn't like, said that it had the right to invade Ukraine because Ukraine was cooking up WMD in biolabs.

Can you see how stupid that is?

Moreover, the Ukrainian government today is ILLEGITIMATE, not only because Zelensky's term is far over, and he declared all politics illegal, but also because there are other agreements that Ukraine has violated between Russia and Ukraine, like the Friendship Treaty.

And it's Russia's role to invade its neighbors if it deems those neighbors' governments to be illegitimate?


Ukraine exited the friendship treaty after it was invaded by Russia. By invading Ukraine, Russia had already violated the treaty.

Crimea is part of Russia, but even before, when Ukraine burned the town hall in Odessa with Russians in it, that was murder, like the 10k+ Russians inside Ukraine they killed before this even started.

Russia can just take any territory that it thinks should be part of Russia? If that's the case, why do you need the rest of the gish gallop of a post? Just say that they're an empire with rights to control their neighbors and be done with it.

They never, not for a second, adhered to the Minsk Memorandum of 2014. The Minsk was violated because "Ukraine" didn't want ANY sort of semi-autonomy for Donbass. The semi-autonomy was basically going to be like we have states with governors and legislatures here. That's all. But Ukraine decided to KILL THEM INSTEAD. Then, it MASSED ITS ARMY and started shelling them again before Russia stepped in. Now, Ukraine has attacked Russia so many times that it doesn't matter anyway.

Russia invaded Ukraine before Minsk.

I suppose this means you can consider the Budapest Memorandum, and the Lisbon Protocol dead, but that's up to the US to work in Ukraine, but I would argue it's still illegitimate because Zelensky has violated the Ukrainian consitition many times. Alas, if the US, UK, or Ukrainian junta regime really want nukes, I guess they can TRY to get them in there and fire them at Russia. It would be stupid, they would just be shot down, and if they exploded dirty or otherwise, I guess their rulers can finish the job and wipe out Ukraine. I understand they like things dead if they can't own them. It's what they decided even in 2022 when they left the Istanbul talks after an agreement was reached, because Blackrock tells them what to do, as Blackrock has already stolen all the Ukrainian rebuilding, farm and resource rights.

If it doesn't matter anyway because the invincible Russian air defense would just shoot it down, why are you so against the idea?


And yes, Russia repeatedly invading Ukraine over the span of a decade definitely means the Budapest Memorandum and Lisbon Protocols are dead.

[Snowball]

Russia invaded Ukraine before Minsk.

I guess I'll respond to this one. I do somewhat agree that the agreements are dead at this point,
so Ukraine can proceed to going nuclear if they want to die.

If you're thinking that the Crimean referendum to join Russia was an "invasion", that's not true.

Crimea was part of Russia long before it was passed over jurisdicitonally to the Ukrainian SSR, and that only happened because Kruschev was Ukrainian. There were basically no Ukrainians living in Crimea, just Tatars and Russians.

Plus, the legitimate government of Ukraine was overthrown by the CIA in 2014. So, Yanukovych has a greater right to be Ukrainian president (he still is) than Zelenskyy.

[TheCount]

If you're thinking that the Crimean referendum to join Russia was an "invasion", that's not true.

How did the Russian military find itself occupying Crimea prior to that referendum?

Crimea was part of Russia long before it was passed over jurisdicitonally to the Ukrainian SSR, and that only happened because Kruschev was Ukrainian. There were basically no Ukrainians living in Crimea, just Tatars and Russians.

I say again: Russia can just take any territory that it thinks should be part of Russia? If that's the case, why do you need the rest of your excuses? Just say that they're an empire with rights to control their neighbors and be done with it.


Also, what happened to the Tatars in Crimea? Why shouldn't Crimea belong to Turkey?

Plus, the legitimate government of Ukraine was overthrown by the CIA in 2014. So, Yanukovych has a greater right to be Ukrainian president (he still is) than Zelenskyy.

Do you realize that many of your excuses for why Russia can invade Ukraine would also be excuses for why the CIA could take over Ukraine?

[Snowball]

How did the Russian military find itself occupying Crimea prior to that referendum?





I say again: Russia can just take any territory that it thinks should be part of Russia? If that's the case, why do you need the rest of your excuses? Just say that they're an empire with rights to control their neighbors and be done with it.


Also, what happened to the Tatars in Crimea? Why shouldn't Crimea belong to Turkey?




Do you realize that many of your excuses for why Russia can invade Ukraine would also be excuses for why the CIA could take over Ukraine?

Sevastopol was always there, the Ukrainians allowed it, under agreement, is how.

Anyway, what do you really think about this now, say, if you were Potus, what would you do?

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEhNRMtbtdk

[TheCount]

Sevastopol was always there, the Ukrainians allowed it, under agreement, is how.

You're saying that no Russian forces entered Crimea? Amazing.

Anyway, what do you really think about this now, say, if you were Potus, what would you do?

I would invade Russia because they're cooking WMD in biolabs and because they have violated many agreements.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES2iZF7P_I

[Snowball]

I would invade Russia

[DamianTV]

Return? Choice of words from King Propaganda NYT implies nukes came FROM Ukraine. No. Biden is the one that WANTS TO START NUCLEAR WAR.

Look, World War 3 is now OFFICIAL. We are in it. Just pray it DOES NOT go NUCLEAR.

These insane mother $#@!ers will DESTROY THE WORLD before they willingly surrender CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

[Voluntarist]

Crimea was part of Russia long before it was passed over jurisdicitonally to the Ukrainian SSR, and that only happened because Kruschev was Ukrainian. There were basically no Ukrainians living in Crimea, just Tatars and Russians.

Yeah, when I was born (in 1953) Crimea was a part of Russia (and reamined so until 1954). It had been so since 1783 (when it had been annexed by Tsarina Catherine the Great). But no, Khrushchev was not Ukrainian, he was born in Russia and remained Russian - though his family moved to "The Ukraine" when he was 15. He was pulled into the Ukrainian Communist Party as a non-voting member due to his expertise in mining, and later became a full-fledged member. So, it's safe to say that he had close ties with Ukrainian leaders, though he was never Ukrainian.

As to the "why" of ceding Crimea to "The Ukraine" - three reasons:
1) Officially it was to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's union with Russia as a show of goodwill and a sign of unity and trust between the Ukrainian and Russian people.
2) The USSR had plans to turn Crimea into a profit center as a tourist destination. But one of the problems that Crimea has is insufficient water to sustain it's population - and Ukraine was more amenable in supporting the construction of the North Crimean Canal (from Ukraine into Crimea) if Crimea itself were in Ukrainian hands (at least on paper).
3) Khrushchev used it as a political chess piece to build support for becoming Premier of the USSR

[Voluntarist]

All were dismantled (although black-market suspiscions exist) -- according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Budapest Memorandum.

Nope. There were roughly 1,700 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, and all were transferred, intact, to Russia. This decision was part of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. In large part, that security assurance is why the situation now is what it is.

As for the black market - it's no small consideration. As the USSR fell apart, the Ukrainian Mafia was "negotiating" with former USSR military for conventional arms located in Ukraine, which were then being sold to terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.

[WarriorLiberty]

Nope. There were roughly 1,700 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, and all were transferred, intact, to Russia. This decision was part of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. In large part, that security assurance is why the situation now is what it is.

As for the black market - it's no small consideration. As the USSR fell apart, the Ukrainian Mafia was "negotiating" with former USSR military for conventional arms located in Ukraine, which were then being sold to terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Those 1,700 nuclear warheads that were in Ukraine to begin with were Russian Made.

This decision was part of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine received security assurances from

If i remember correctly the West/Europe also promised that Ukraine will never join NATO.
Yet Ukraine is being dragged into both NATO and EU.

Russia clearly didnt broke the Budapest Memorandum agreement if the US Hawks decided to go with a regime change plan for Ukraine.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9zFamMLv4

[Snowball]

Nope. There were roughly 1,700 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, and all were transferred, intact, to Russia. This decision was part of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. In large part, that security assurance is why the situation now is what it is.

As for the black market - it's no small consideration. As the USSR fell apart, the Ukrainian Mafia was "negotiating" with former USSR military for conventional arms located in Ukraine, which were then being sold to terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I thought they were dismantled, either right away or not soon thereafter. It doesn't matter now, anyway.

The point is those were better days for us all.

[devil21]

........iykyk.......