The Moral of the story of Ukraine, never give up your nukes!

[Pavel Mosko]

This also is the moral of the story of Libya and Gaddafi! Give up your weapons of mass destruction you got and totally renounce ever seeking nukes and 8 years later you still will get taken out by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who is looking to improve his resume for the history books. This also is yet one more reason why Kim Jong Un is so squirrely, besides all the other reasons. There is no up side by playing nice, and if you are too weak you may be taken out by the next president looking for accolades.

 

[Sketcher]

This also is the moral of the story of Libya and Gaddafi! Give up your weapons of mass destruction you got and totally renounce ever seeking nukes and 8 years later you still will get taken out by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who is looking to improve his resume for the history books. This also is yet one more reason why Kim Jong Un is so squirrely, besides all the other reasons. There is no up side by playing nice, and if you are too weak you may be taken out by the next president looking for accolades.

Obama wasn't right to support the war in Libya but Gaddafi did have it coming.

 

[Arcangl86]

This also is the moral of the story of Libya and Gaddafi! Give up your weapons of mass destruction you got and totally renounce ever seeking nukes and 8 years later you still will get taken out by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who is looking to improve his resume for the history books. This also is yet one more reason why Kim Jong Un is so squirrely, besides all the other reasons. There is no up side by playing nice, and if you are too weak you may be taken out by the next president looking for accolades.

It's worth remembering that Ukraine had nukes, but they couldn't use them anyway.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

This also is the moral of the story of Libya and Gaddafi! Give up your weapons of mass destruction you got and totally renounce ever seeking nukes and 8 years later you still will get taken out by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who is looking to improve his resume for the history books. This also is yet one more reason why Kim Jong Un is so squirrely, besides all the other reasons. There is no up side by playing nice, and if you are too weak you may be taken out by the next president looking for accolades.

The problem I have with that argument is twofold. The first is hypocrisy. Countries like the United States have no business asking states like North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs while they themselves still have such weapons. The second is that the greater the global supply of nuclear weapons, the greater the possibility that rogue entities like al-Qaeda or Islamic State could get their hands on them and do who-knows-what with them.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

This all is a sad reminder that while might does not make right in a moral sense, it is sadly the only currency for freedom in this broken world, as there is always somebody who refuses to negotiate through any means other than "aggressive negotiations".

Not saying having WMDs would have made a difference. It might have, but can anybody really use those things? Whoever uses them instantly will be viewed as the bad guy by a lot of people, regardless of the circumstances, and a smaller country may be able to cause some damage to a larger one, but the larger one will wipe them off the face of the earth.

A sad reminder to people who say violence solves nothing. Violence is a very effective means to achieve one's goals. It just puts the world in the messed-up state we've been in since Adam and Eve.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The problem I have with that argument is twofold. The first is hypocrisy. Countries like the United States have no business asking states like North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs while they themselves still have such weapons. The second is that the greater the global supply of nuclear weapons, the greater the possibility that rogue entities like al-Qaeda or Islamic State could get their hands on them and do who-knows-what with them.

Malcom your post is all based on idealism not realism. Your country greatly benefits from our nukes and the fact we have a vested interest in defending it to keep the Huns outside our own country. That is why you chilly country can be such a welfare state paradise.


But yeah I agree it is hypocritical, but it is also about trying to keep the big booms out of the hands of the crazies who might actually use them. But that is not the point of the OP, which is about the "Law of Unintended Consequences" when it comes to domestic and foreign policy. This is precisely why I knew all the hippies were naïve for pushing for this when I went to university in 88-90 in Northern California in the days before the Soviet Union fell. (And yes I mean hippie literally that alternative life style lived on in places like Santa Cruz county, Berkley and Esalen).

 

[Pommer]

Only one Nation has ever used nuclear weapons in war.

 

[cow451]

Only one Nation has ever used nuclear weapons in war.

That's because that country was the only one with operational nukes.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

 

[FireDragon76]

Malcom your post is all based on idealism not realism. Your country greatly benefits from our nukes and the fact we have a vested interest in defending it to keep the Huns outside our own country. That is why you chilly country can be such a welfare state paradise.

It's worse than that. Canada cooperates with the US in NORAD to defend against nuclear weapons attacks (ostensibly by threats of nuclear retaliation).

 

[A_Thinker]

Only one Nation has ever used nuclear weapons in war.

Somebody had to do it ...

 

[Don Maurer]

This also is the moral of the story of Libya and Gaddafi! Give up your weapons of mass destruction you got and totally renounce ever seeking nukes and 8 years later you still will get taken out by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who is looking to improve his resume for the history books. This also is yet one more reason why Kim Jong Un is so squirrely, besides all the other reasons. There is no up side by playing nice, and if you are too weak you may be taken out by the next president looking for accolades.

I am not sure the answer to this question is so obvious. In 1991 when Ukraine became independent, and agreed to give up their nukes, if they had followed a different policy and refused to give up nukes, would Russia have allowed an independent nuclear powered state on their border? Would such a policy of refusing to give up nukes made for the Feb 2022 war to happen in 1991 except with a nuclear exchange?

We can sit at our later point in history and read the geo-politics of the current situation back into history (1991), but do we really know that a nuclear armed ukraine would still not be attacked by Russia in some way? Would the Crimea be under control of Ukraine right now if it had nuclear weapons? What about Donetsk and Luhansk? Would they no longer be an issue between Ukraine and Russia if Ukraine had nuclear weapons?

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if Ukraine had retained nuclear weapons. I would agree with your implication that Ukrainian retention of nuclear weapons would surely make for a different outcome than what we have right now. I also see you as implying that had Ukraine retained nuclear weapons there would be no war. I have doubts about that.

 

[Don Maurer]

Another opinion about the Ukraine/Russia conflict...

I suspect that this will not be a short war. The war started Feb 24th and today is April 15th. I think the Russians went for all of eastern Ukraine in the first gulp. They failed to take Kiev and suffered heavy casualties. The casualties only mean something to the west. In Russia, they have an amazing tendency to take a lot of casualties and keep going. Casualties do not end the war in a Russian mentality. Now they are repositioning for an attack in the south for battle #2.

I think Russia has the military resources to have many many battles and I do not think Putin will give up as easily as a western leader. Look at what happened already. Putin has had many generals arrested already. Do not think this is a sign of weakness in Russia. Rather, this is a sign he is consolidating power. Stalin did this in the late 1930s in a suppression of his military before WW2. Stalin was a brutal dictator and lasted until 1953. The only place in Russia that a coup might come from is the generals of the Army. Both Putin and Stalin will replace all generals that they are not sure are loyal to them and consolidate power and avoid a military coup. This is yet another sign to me that Putin in entrenching and preparing for a long war.

I watch the news. Most western news agencies seem to think that Putin and Russia is about to collapse. While there is one possible single solitary sign of trouble in Russia, I do not think that collapse is immanent. Neither do I see total collapse as immanent in Ukraine. Some westerners point to the sanctions as causing collapse. I think it has little to do with it. The sanctions will do two things. It will degrade future military development, and it will wipe out the Russian middle class. It is this Russian middle class where the peace movements and resistance to Putin would come from.

The only way that Russia will actually loose this war is with an overthrow of Putin. I have yet to see any sure sign that this is immanent. I know some will disagree with me for saying that. They will point to the protestors and the low moral among the soldiers. That is not how things work in Russia. Protests were crushed in Poland, Hungary and many other places. For an overthrow, what is needed is not protestors, but something like what happened in 1991. When protests occurred, the soldiers refused to fire on the protestors. When the police refuse to arrest protestors, that is a sign of Russian collapse. This is why I said in the preceding paragraph that there is one possible single solitary sign of trouble. Just today I heard on the news that a Russian paramilitary organization (possibly Wagner group) is refusing to go back into battle. They were withdrawn from Kiev and are refusing to be redeployed. Unfortunately, I did not hear what they are doing with these paramilitary soldiers who are refusing. If the Russians shoot them, and send the rest to battle, then this is no major revolt. If this spreads to the regular army it could be serious for Russia.

* Finally, let me say that while my opinions above can be cold and calculated, this does not mean that I am with Russia in any way. What Putin is doing actually makes geo-political sense to me. On the other hand, geo-politics is not morality. It is not the same thing. I see this invasion as Putins geo-political gamble that actually makes some sense. I do not think he is nuts as the western news portrays him. On the other hand Russia's war is not a just war, but it is a war of evil. It is a massive war of shocking depravity from so many perspectives. My point has nothing to do with supporting Russia in this war, but has everything to do with the fact that as I said in my first sentence... "This will not be a short war."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I am not sure the answer to this question is so obvious. In 1991 when Ukraine became independent, and agreed to give up their nukes, if they had followed a different policy and refused to give up nukes, would Russia have allowed an independent nuclear powered state on their border?

Most likely yes because the person running the place at the time was Yeltsin whose personality was pretty much 180 degrees different than that of Putin.

 

[Don Maurer]

Most likely yes because the person running the place at the time was Yeltsin whose personality was pretty much 180 degrees different than that of Putin.

Could be, but even then when Putin came to power, I am not sure that nuclear weapons would deter a Putin led imperial Russia.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Could be, but even then when Putin came to power, I am not sure that nuclear weapons would deter a Putin led imperial Russia.

I think they would. When was the last time Putin invaded a nuclear power.....?

 

[Homeowner]

I think they would. When was the last time Putin invaded a nuclear power.....?

Functional nukes probably should give just about everyone a pause. Then again only non NATO countries with nukes are Pakistan, India, North Korea, China and Israel. Countries that Russia has no reason to attack anyway.

 

[Don Maurer]

Functional nukes probably should give just about everyone a pause. Then again only non NATO countries with nukes are Pakistan, India, North Korea, China and Israel. Countries that Russia has no reason to attack anyway.

Agreed. Good point. Putin has already mentioned using nukes. Back in 1969 there was a border fight between China and USSR. Since it was in the far east, the USSR did not have a lot of resources available and the Chinese had the upper hand. The USSR wanted to use one nuke on a Chinese city to make China back down. The USA threatened to nuke the USSR if they used nukes on China.

I think Putin is far more militaristic and would be quicker to push the button than the former leaders in the USSR.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The USSR wanted to use one nuke on a Chinese city to make China back down. The USA threatened to nuke the USSR if they used nukes on China.

Wanted but didn't. Actually if I recall the US actually had a hand in that, the USSR eventually floated the question to Nixon who stood up for China.

I think Putin is far more militaristic and would be quicker to push the button than the former leaders in the USSR.

I don't think so. There are some old Cold War documents floating around discovered in the 90s, from the Russian version of the Freedom of Information act. They actually are complementary to Reagan when you look at the what they say. Basically after Vietnam and the Carter administration that the Soviets were pretty convinced that the west was in a down ward spiral and they could probably advance into western Europe some time in the 80s. All that estimation, however went out the window after Reagan came in to office.

 

[Homeowner]

Basically after Vietnam and the Carter administration that the Soviets were pretty convinced that the west was in a down ward spiral and they could probably advance into western Europe some time in the 80s.

Like they were pretty convinced this time that it would be over in matter of days with Ukrainians cheerfully welcoming their new overlords.

Should Putin use nuclear weapons it would almost certainly draw NATO in on some capacity. Perhaps that no fly zone would be imposed.

Their support from China would dry out since nuclear escalation is the last thing China wants to drag on what they vision is their new world order. Especially since in that regard their nuclear stockpiles are vastly smaller than what US and Russia have.