You're making it look like it's Ukraine's choice. They're being forced to the nuclear path by the internal enemies within NATO that are fucking everything up
Ukraine gave up those nukes in exchange for security assurances. If Russia is going to go back on its assurance, then Ukraine should be able to go back to the nukes. Fair is fair.
As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.
I been saying this for years, and it's really nice to see someone say this too while also not getting 1000 downvotes. I shed a tear of joy for the new generation
As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.
Is that true? If the worst comes to pass, I wonder what the UN will say (not that it matters...)
It's a bold move but I don't see it changing the outcome of the ongoing war. If Ukraine could build long-range ballistic missiles in the near future, I think they could regain the advantage even without any nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads would not be useful without those ballistic missiles.
A nuke seems like overkill. You would end up wiping out the population of Climea. If people didn't die in the initial blast they would certainly die from the nuclear fallout in the coming weeks, months and years.
Just use a powerful traditional explosive. You could even blow up a gas truck.
Man fuck these comments, nuke Russia you pussies. I'll deliver the missiles myself if that's what you need. Strap me to the rocket and fire me at Moscow!
Nuclear bombs aren't something you throw together in a afternoon. Also they primarily impact civilians. Precision is what they need. Take out critical components.
While I agree with your second argument that Russia would probably just call them on their bluff, I don't think they'd need long range ballistic missiles. They seem to operate on russian soil a lot, and you could put a big nuke into a larger van easily.
Just package it as a good old gravity bomb or glide bomb?
Or get creative and mount it on a swarm of large drones (with the others being decoys for SAMs). Maybe like a fleet of old prop planes flying very low.
This is very hypothetical though, no one should hope for Ukraine reaching the point of even considering an actual launch of a nuke.
Better to focus on targeted attacks. I think the Ukrainians know there country so guerrilla warfare is a better idea. Keep the Russians miserable and fearful of surprise attack. Ukraine can't beat Russia but they can break the spirit of the Russians so that they end up going home after years of embarrassment.
I think it isn't all that different then Vietnam or the US revolutionary war. Both victories were people who were protecting there homes. They used local knowledge and clever tactics. If the Ukrainians can keep the sky clear and stay hidden they are good.
They only need to get rid of one little coward hiding in his bunker - Putin. It would be a whole different story if he was on the front actually fighting because so many Russians die there.
I wish, but he has lots of people to succeed him, who also piss and shit all over other people's stuff. Can you imagine a female version of Putin? There is one- Maria Belovna, IIRC her name. She is the kamehameha beyotch in charge of stealing children from Ukraine and putting them in "education" camps. Unfortunately she is in her maximum Cartman's Mom years. Not old, not young. I think she, even though a civilian, should be moved up the list for wet work, treated just like a Russian military officer and charged with war crimes in absentia. Car ignition go pop.
Sure, there may be others that are willing to set up and follow in his footsteps. But remember - the people is afraid of one specific person - Putin. People do not fully dare to go against him. Any new leader will not have the same kind of respect. So that means people may have higher chance in succeeding to stop the war.
No development required, I think they can open a drawer somewhere and pick one of several soviet designs. If they want a nuke, they can build one right away.
It would cost them the support of their allies, however, and they cannot afford that.
Imagine a right wing US/EU election sweep from Zelensky's point of view. They're going to force Ukraine to capitulate, and in a very lopsided manner that cripples Ukraine forever, hence this could be an actual option/last resort more than a threat.
Maybe the support is not worth losing the war. In "The King and I", the King of Siam has a verse "...If allies are weak, am I not best alone? ...If allies are strong with power to protect me, might they not protect me out of all I own?"
Looking at Israel, the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” strategy really works with the US (a good example is also Kursk attack, Nord Stream 2 or Kerch bridge sabotage). They should just be doing crazy shit, forcing escalation on Russian side, and thus in response by the US/NATO. Of course this is a delicate balance, but a few nukes on paper I think would still be okay.
These could guarantee the existence of their nation in the future, and unless they use them on a Russian city, no repercussions would happen beyond verbal saber rattling just for having it. Russia would definitely shit themselves and dial back on the agression.
I'm pretty sure escalating the conflict to nuclear levels is not something they want to do. Not to mention development and manufacturing takes time and physical facilities. You can't easily make nuclear bomb grade materials and not draw attention.
For real, it was imo the most categorically awful geopolitical play he (and Merkel, to boot) made while in office. Like, Neville Chamberlain-grade awful.
Implying they would allow Ukraine to join NATO or allow Ukraine to start a nukes program, especially after kneecapping their nukes leverage in the 90s in exchange for a deal neither Russia nor the US actually fulfilled.