Current European Situation Discussion

Ukraine was told that if they give up their nukes they would be under the protection of the USA et al. What a bunch of bull shit when the pushing came to shoving and then bullets started flying. Ukraine gave away their teeth and claws and now the bear is smashing them on the rocks. Long live the bear, at least it still knows what teeth and claws are for!

Yeah I know I know, and I agree the current situation is a breach of the Budapest Memorandum. HOWEVER what I am saying is that Ukraine having nukes or not, would not have mattered at all in the current situation. Due to the political as well as the military situation does prevent them from using them without loosing.

They would have had nukes, looking at the state of the overall Ukrainian army, probably not that many working, but if the current situation is not enough for the Ukraine to even break diplomatic relations with the RF, or even block trade, it certainly would not be enough to nuke the RF.

(come to think of it, having nukes would probably have been worse, since their army would be in an even worse state if money had gone to prevent a bunch of nukes going bad)

In Greece huge portions of the population were able to retire at 50 or 55 to a pension (I forget which) if their job was labeled as hazardous. But this came to include categories like hair colorists. Government workers got 13th and 14th monthly payments (on pensions too I believe) as a matter of course. Taxes are nigh uncollectable. The society was never geared around a German monetary policy, yet the dollars were borrowed.

totally agree with most of what your saying. But the retirement thing is a bit of a myth. Some did that true, but it was not really the core issue but it sells papers i guess


But yeah the overblown government jobs and the fact the tax service is horrible nobody pays it and corruption is rank. I find it funny to see ideologues argue over Greece, truth be told its problems are not lazy people but rather: Overblown public institutions and (they used to have) very overly easy welfare. (That would be the left wing) And then you mix that with not paying any tax, like the right-wing said would be good for the economy in the 80s-90s (neo-liberals). So I see it as the worst of the ideas working together to destroy the economy.

Im not sure I agree that being close to a country in a conflict automaticallzy grants you higher insight into the situation than somebody living on the otherside of the planet...

Media is open and you can get pretty much all opinions and first hand sources without leaving your desk.

Yep . People just really need to filter the information they get .

Yep . People just really need to filter the information they get .

Plenty of institutions will be happy to do that for you.

Reading all sources are fine. I don't think you should "filter" stuff out, but I get what you are saying.

Just read what you find interesting, take some time and try to figure out who is saying what, where they come from, what might affect them and what "side" they might have taken or seem to have taken. And basically be critical and try to open minded. It isn't that hard.

Just remember, people mostly manages to justify themselves, in their own eyes. Everyone thinks THEY are righteous. So try to see it from all perspectives.
and when it comes to what has actually transpired, just keep a critical thought: Who says what? Is this reasonable? What else might have happened? Does the explanation makes sense? Keep being cynical

I would rather have Nuclear weapons and not need them than need them and have given them away.

Here's a microcosm for you: thieves go out of their way to make sure that they rob / attack people without guns. Whereas the weaponless are fair game for all the criminally minded.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Ukraine is without substantial weapons and they are getting abused. The cause and effect are pretty simple to follow here.

One other thought - if you want peace, prepare for war.

I would rather have Nuclear weapons and not need them than need them and have given them away.

Here's a microcosm for you: thieves go out of their way to make sure that they rob / attack people without guns. Whereas the weaponless are fair game for all the criminally minded.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Ukraine is without substantial weapons and they are getting abused. The cause and effect are pretty simple to follow here.

Ill try to get thorough to you again, Two questions for you:

1. How would Ukraine have utilized nukes during the Crimean Crisis?

2. How would Ukraine have utilized nukes during the current conflict in the Donbass?


Ukraine having nukes or not having them would have close to zero effect on the conflicts of the last year and a half. (close to zero because it would have put the army in a worse state than what it was in 2014)

Plenty of institutions will be happy to do that for you.

can you name some ?

USA media perhaps ?

what else ?

RIP european union
Meanwhile russia divide and conquer.

Ill try to get thorough to you again, Two questions for you:

1. How would Ukraine have utilized nukes during the Crimean Crisis?

2. How would Ukraine have utilized nukes during the current conflict in the Donbass?


Ukraine having nukes or not having them would have close to zero effect on the conflicts of the last year and a half. (close to zero because it would have put the army in a worse state than what it was in 2014)

Wow really? I tried to build you a microcosm to make it simpler and that went right over your head. I gave you an aphorism from the 4th century BC about peace through power, and that too was a dud. So, lets just move on now because you aren't getting what I'm saying and I couldn't be saying it clearer.

Will explain one thing to you:
Nukes are not so much about utilizing as they are about saying I have a mother fucking Nuke bitch. Give me respect. It's worked very well for Israel, and would have worked well for Ukraine.

RIP european union
Meanwhile russia divide and conquer.

its not that simple .

Wow really? I tried to build you a microcosm to make it simpler and that went right over your head. I gave you an aphorism from the 4th century BC about peace through power, and that too was a dud. So, lets just move on now because you aren't getting what I'm saying and I couldn't be saying it clearer.

Will explain one thing to you:
Nukes are not so much about utilizing as they are about saying I have a mother fucking Nuke bitch. Give me respect. It's worked very well for Israel, and would have worked well for Ukraine.

Sigh, and it was a stupid microcosm, neither does that quote apply. Nuclear Arms are a thing in their own. Utilizing a conventional weapon to defend is one thing but nukes carry with them huge collateral damage and an incredibly huge political cost.

Better microcosm is someone steals your bike and you send his entire family anthrax. Now if he is threating, and capable of murdering your entire family, you being able to do the same is MAD. This concept of escalation is called "The nuclear ladder of escalation" I suggest you read up on it.

It works for Israel because if they loose they are facing extinction, as a state and possibly the physical extermination of their entire people. They might use nukes as a way to bring their enemies with them.



Ill guess I'll have to walk you through it:

to my first question: Basic reason the the Crimean crisis occurring is that the Ukraine armed forces didn't really have a command at that time, they couldn't even use conventional forces. Using Nuclear forces if they were availible would not even be possible, and the escalation ladder would not have allowed for it. IE Not enough political support for using nukes.
And if they did where would they aim? At the troops in Crimea? Yeah nuking yourself is a good idea. Because that wouldn't turn 90% of the country against whatever faction made it happen.
And the international community would not accept the new regime, people all over the world would be appalled and call for removing whomever called for the strike. Plus Russia would probably declare war and they would have the political force to retaliate, because you just jumped up high on the nuclear ladder of escalation. And the west will do nothing because they cannot defend a country that just made a Nuclear First bloody Strike!
That is a loss. Ukraine is no longer a state if your lucky, Ukrainians stops existing if your are unlucky.

Nuking russia with all of your might? Will kill millions, but again in the eyes of the world no reason to do it, they stole your bike, you sent anthrax to all of their family. You loose any domestic and foreign support. International community would be against you. Russia would either retaliate with nuclear warheads and invade.

Using it in the Donbass, again same thing. Nuke one of the largest cities of the Ukraine? Yeah I don't think there really is political support to do such a thing, nor that there ever was. Again same thing, both international and domestic, there would be no support whatsoever for a nuclear strike.

Please realize something: Nukes cannot be used at a whim, because of the political ramifications they bring. Nobody believed any side during the cold war would start slinging nukes against eachothers population centers the first thing that happened. Rather it is an escalation. When you can convince people "We will cease to exists anyhow" is the only time you can use strategic nukes politically. Only when your destruction is assured, MAD comes into effect.

Tactical nukes would not work either, because then you just start the nuclear ladder. and a) Ukraine would have to nuke their own soil, and people. or b) nuke russia. That would start a war, which Ukraine would loose in the matter of days, or if using more nukes, Russia would simply bomb them back. Either way it is a huge escalation that would not realistically lead to anything but the total destruction of the Ukraine.

Since you like microcosms so much here is another one: It isn't one thief against you and both have guns. It is you with a gun vs. the national guard, they entered your home and stole something. Do you think opening fire is a good idea?


This is one of the core ideas of Hybrid Warfare! Or more truthfully it is just a continuation of late soviet ideas about limited warfare. It is a way in order to be able to use military force without the risk of WMDs coming into play.

Look at the situation today. Ukraine calls in speeches and such Russia the aggressor and senior level politicians have stated that they are invaded by the RF. Still they have diplomatic ties! That is the first thing to go!
And you are saying if they had nukes they would have used them? Get real. Nuclear War is something totally different form anything else, it is a category of its own and its theories are well known.

Ukraine having nukes would have meant squat.

Yes before I forget, "proportionality" is a thing. If somebody gives you a slap, you don't shoot him in the face and rapes his sister.

Thats why it works for Israel but would not work with the current conflict in Ukraine.

Like to people believe that just because you have nukes you can never be attacked? Worked well on 9/11, In Budyonnovsk, Beslan, 07/07 and so on.


Why didn't the US just nuke Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2001/2003?

btw MAD means Mutual assured destruction

it is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see Pre-emptive nuclear strike and Second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

Media is open and you can get pretty much all opinions

Oh my god/ Who told you that????

Things that influence on people's thoughts are the most controlled things in the world.

There was no chance to keep nuclear weapon for Ukraine after USSR collapse, there wasn't any "power" from west or east who would allow it, no one, except Ukraine, wasn't interested in that .

Cold war 2.0 is only real World War which could happen. Nuclear missiles op.

Sigh, and it was a stupid microcosm, neither does that quote apply. Nuclear Arms are a thing in their own. Utilizing a conventional weapon to defend is one thing but nukes carry with them huge collateral damage and an incredibly huge political cost.

Better microcosm is someone steals your bike and you send his entire family anthrax. Now if he is threating, and capable of murdering your entire family, you being able to do the same is MAD. This concept of escalation is called "The nuclear ladder of escalation" I suggest you read up on it.

It works for Israel because if they loose they are facing extinction, as a state and possibly the physical extermination of their entire people. They might use nukes as a way to bring their enemies with them.



Ill guess I'll have to walk you through it:

to my first question: Basic reason the the Crimean crisis occurring is that the Ukraine armed forces didn't really have a command at that time, they couldn't even use conventional forces. Using Nuclear forces if they were availible would not even be possible, and the escalation ladder would not have allowed for it. IE Not enough political support for using nukes.
And if they did where would they aim? At the troops in Crimea? Yeah nuking yourself is a good idea. Because that wouldn't turn 90% of the country against whatever faction made it happen.
And the international community would not accept the new regime, people all over the world would be appalled and call for removing whomever called for the strike. Plus Russia would probably declare war and they would have the political force to retaliate, because you just jumped up high on the nuclear ladder of escalation. And the west will do nothing because they cannot defend a country that just made a Nuclear First bloody Strike!
That is a loss. Ukraine is no longer a state if your lucky, Ukrainians stops existing if your are unlucky.

Nuking russia with all of your might? Will kill millions, but again in the eyes of the world no reason to do it, they stole your bike, you sent anthrax to all of their family. You loose any domestic and foreign support. International community would be against you. Russia would either retaliate with nuclear warheads and invade.

Using it in the Donbass, again same thing. Nuke one of the largest cities of the Ukraine? Yeah I don't think there really is political support to do such a thing, nor that there ever was. Again same thing, both international and domestic, there would be no support whatsoever for a nuclear strike.

Please realize something: Nukes cannot be used at a whim, because of the political ramifications they bring. Nobody believed any side during the cold war would start slinging nukes against eachothers population centers the first thing that happened. Rather it is an escalation. When you can convince people "We will cease to exists anyhow" is the only time you can use strategic nukes politically. Only when your destruction is assured, MAD comes into effect.

Tactical nukes would not work either, because then you just start the nuclear ladder. and a) Ukraine would have to nuke their own soil, and people. or b) nuke russia. That would start a war, which Ukraine would loose in the matter of days, or if using more nukes, Russia would simply bomb them back. Either way it is a huge escalation that would not realistically lead to anything but the total destruction of the Ukraine.

Since you like microcosms so much here is another one: It isn't one thief against you and both have guns. It is you with a gun vs. the national guard, they entered your home and stole something. Do you think opening fire is a good idea?


This is one of the core ideas of Hybrid Warfare! Or more truthfully it is just a continuation of late soviet ideas about limited warfare. It is a way in order to be able to use military force without the risk of WMDs coming into play.

Look at the situation today. Ukraine calls in speeches and such Russia the aggressor and senior level politicians have stated that they are invaded by the RF. Still they have diplomatic ties! That is the first thing to go!
And you are saying if they had nukes they would have used them? Get real. Nuclear War is something totally different form anything else, it is a category of its own and its theories are well known.

Ukraine having nukes would have meant squat.

You a girl? You debate like a girl. Let me tell you something:

No one is interested in reading your book of bad logic. There is greatness in brevity. Remember it and use it.

You a girl? You debate like a girl. Let me tell you something:

No one is interested in reading your book of bad logic. There is greatness in brevity. Remember it and use it.

Yeah it is a bit fleshed out I'll admit. However my earlier posts where not. And since you did not seem to grasp basic understanding of Nuclear War nor of Politics I felt the need to start from the top, and that will result in it being fleshed out.

Please do point out my bad logic, maybe i skipped something or so.


Point still is: Even if Ukraine had nukes they would not have mattered, because there is not enough excuses to use them. Ladder of escalation.