The Ukrainian President from 1995-2005 was Russophillic, whereas the Ukrainian President from 2005-2010, was Russophobic or at least pro Western. So if the missile technology transfer happened before Jan. 2005 it would suggest that a Russia-aligned Ukraine has been a problem for more than 20 years. Is that what you wanted to imply?

And who are North Korea’s “rich uncles” BTW? Would they be China and Russia? Heavens to Betsy, I’m shocked!

As recently as 2005 the ukrainian govt was providing nuclear capable missiles to rogue states like north korea, which had been rewarded by the clinton administration

Of course the rise of new nuclear powers just encourages other like a leap frog act the syrians had acquired a reactor in deir er zour that was a litlle too close for all involved so the israelis blew it up in 2007

Of course nuclear foolishness for the clintons was ‘never to say i’m sorry, they engaged in similar actions at home.

The last two were part of aq khans nuclear development gig its remarkable how little is referred about him

And as things have played out Ukraine not having the Soviet era weapons on had seems to have reduced the uncertainty that Vladdy had to consider before he invaded Ukraine in 2022.

“They don’t last forever” … (as if anything does). That would mostly be the tritium IIRC, in a boosted design. Not all systems use tritium though, again IIRC. Opining just a geologist.

Just sayin’

You can only say this if you have no idea how nuclear weapons are secured, or how they are built and maintained.

They are hosted in foreign countries all the time. They are not passive devices with a big button on the side that anyone can push who walks by, and they can’t be tampered with without that immediately being known, and it’s not a simple matter to disassemble and rebuild them.

Furthermore they don’t last forever and Ukraine had no capability to replace them.

It was because Ukraine could not use the weapons, and Russia could but not with 100% certainty, that Ukraine didn’t want them, because it was a worst-of-both-worlds situation for both countries. For example, if Russia started a war Ukraine was trying to stay out of, the nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be a target. The most Ukraine achieved was a potential capability to prevent the launch of the weapons, which they couldn’t rely on. Every interaction of the Ukrainians with those weapons was known to Moscow and was a continual source of friction with Russia. They were a headache to both nations and Ukraine wisely decided to accept financial compensation for their repatriation.

South Africa is the only nation that has actually had its own nuclear weapons and then given them up.

The question is whether Trump sees Putin as an enemy or a potential ally. I used to think the latter–clearly Trump respects Putin more, on a personal level, than he does Zelensky or our deadbeat NATO allies. Now comes news that Trump is threatening Putin with more sanctions to get him to the negotiating table. Unlike mkent, I suspect there is method to Trump’s behavior. There better be, because mkent is correct when he says that Trump is disrupting the entire postwar and post-Cold War security system. I think it badly needed to be disrupted, but this is turning into a queasy-making rollercoaster ride. Dangerous times; high stakes.

To your points: I agree that Putin’s ambitions exceed his capabilities and that the West can take advantage of that if needed. Stirring up trouble in Transnistria, Belarus, and Königsberg/Kaliningrad and the Suwalki Gap would fit the bill. I said in February 2022 that effing around on Russia’s periphery was a really stupid thing to do, but that was then and this is now. What’s Putin going to do–invade Poland and Lithuania with his depleted army and 1950s-vintage armor? With his “allies” in the PRC lurking on the border in the Russian Far East? Good luck with that.

“I’d say the best way to discourage Putin from further aggression is to make sure there is no Putin around in the future.” And the best way to do that is to make him appear ineffectual while saying nice things about him in public. If we can do that, we won’t have to take him out. Someone else will.

On NATO being a dead letter: sorry, but I can’t see how it isn’t. NATO = the U.S. The U.S. is not going to go to war against Russia to defend the territorial integrity of (say) Estonia. And once Article V goes, the whole thing collapses. Pace you and others on this forum, that may not be a bad thing. I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).” That’s ridiculous and unsustainable. Mkent referred on the other thread to Tusk talking about maybe developing a Polish nuclear deterrent, like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that some of the Europeans are getting serious about their own defense. As for mkent’s fear that proliferation will inevitably lead to WWIII and nukes flying all over the world, I would point to India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers that hate each other’s guts but have somehow managed to avoid going to all-out war. Strategist Bernard Brodie rightly called nuclear weapons “the absolute weapon” in his 1946 book of the same name. By that token, they’re the ultimate deterrent.

I’m more optimistic about Ukraine’s military situation than others on this forum. It has fought Russia to a stalemate. As Bill Whittle said in the video I linked to a few threads ago, the Ukrainians have broken the teeth of the Russian bear. Whittle also said that Zelensky, unlike Churchill in 1940, came to the White House to ask for more resources but didn’t offer anything in return. Literally true but not true in a larger sense. Zelensky may not have explicitly offered anything to Trump, but breaking the Russian Army’s offensive power and exposing Russia’s weakness strikes me as not a bad quid for our $350 billion quo.

”Trump does hold the cards. If the US stops backing Ukraine, it will fall to Russia.”

The result of that is World War III. Well, the US has stopped backing Ukraine, and the world is preparing for war.

”They never had any to give up. Russia had nukes on Ukrainian soil, controlled from Moscow. The nukes were repatriated to Russia.”

You keep saying this, and you’re still wrong. Ukraine could have easily dismantled the weapons and used the parts to build their own.

You’re kind of hard to read but I think you are saying that Bad People who Hate America are supporting American involvement in Ukraine. And from that you infer that American involvement in Ukraine is bad for America?

If that is what you mean, that’s just Tribal thinking, and it’s simply not valid, because there’s not just two Tribes and we can’t do right by just doing the opposite of the Bad Tribe. Some things are still true if the Bad Tribe says them and some things are still right even if the Bad Tribe does them.

There’s a lot of reasons to support or oppose American intervention in Ukraine, some bad and some good, some smart and some stupid, and there’s no cause so good that some bad people don’t follow it.

Definitely there’s some nasty pieces of work out there opposing American involvement in Ukraine as well as nasty pieces of work supporting it.

We must preserve the stockpiles of our “precious bodily fluids.” But that was a different foe and a different age.

You are the one who is saying Ukrainians would target Americans. Can’t you read your own writing?

It’s a natural extension that those Ukrainians fighting an insurgency would blame the US for their fate and might take it out on American workers.

Yeah, only natural in the eyes of someone who opposes the deal?

“Wouldn’t be prudent.”

The lengths some go in shaping a narrative.