Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    The irony is that Ukraine had “the bomb”, but the US and its allies promised to protect them if they gave it up. Oops.

    • golli@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?

      Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn’t happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else’s breach.

      • Vailliant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        "A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.

        In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.

        In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.

        For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."

        https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance

        :::

      • haggyg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s my understanding. Furthermore, they had the nuclear weapons of the soviet union. Even if they could maintain them at the time, without much of the infrastructure that the soviet Union had, I think legally they were Moscow’s. Moscow held the metaphorical button, if not the physical one. Similar to US nuclear weapons in Germany aren’t controlled by Berlin.

        That being said, I think this whole war has lead to a situation where nuclear armament is very appealing, not just to Kyiv but to many of the similar states looking on. It is again, for world peace we need less nukes in the world, for Ukraine’s sovereign safety, they need (more) nukes.

      • Irremarkable@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords

        (1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states

        That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn’t actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.

      • illi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should’ve included something akin to Article 5

        • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Russia would have never signed on to that. Their whole argument about Ukraine is the constant advancement of NATO territories towards its border.

          • illi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yeah… and Ukraine clearly shouldn’t have signed without it

        • golli@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.

          I think you can’t give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they’d only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn’t give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.

          For Russia that would have never been acceptable.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s the lesson here… They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.

        Zero benefit to the people

    • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The US and Russia. Ya know, the Russia that’s murdering, raping, and torturing Ukrainians and claiming they shouldn’t exist like genocide

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.

    • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is like saying that Germany has the right to keep the American nukes stationed on its soil if the US was to ever leaver Germany.

      The soviet bombs were built, operated and guarded by a Russian department of the Russian Republic member of the Soviet union. what Ukraine signed on was a smooth repatriation of those nukes back to Russian. there is no real way Ukraine could have confiscated them even if they tried.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Giving up nukes, and remaining neutral, is also the conditions for their liberation granted by USSR/Russia. Germany asking US to end its occupation is going to need the US to be allowed to take their weapons for them to agree peacefully.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    YES

    The US and Russia promised to defend Ukraine if it surrendered its nukes. Russia is currently destroying Ukraine, and trump will let them so it’s time since that agreement was now worthless

  • stardust@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think nuclear deterant is the only thing that has a chance of working for countries that aren’t military super powers, and even military super powers have them for a reason. And a country having to rely on benevolence of other countries leaves too many things to chance for nations that wish to be sovereign.

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are you implying that russia is a military super power? Their performance in ukraine has shown they are a paper tiger with a few nukes up their sleeve from back when the soviet union was actually a major player.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Compared to Ukraine yes, and they have a lot more people to throw at the meat wave

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    My sympathy for Ukraine says they should.

    My survival instincts as an American would say they shouldn’t because then Russia get big mad and nuke us. I don’t enjoy radiation, so my survival brain is saying they shouldn’t.

    But my suicidal brain after seeing the result of the US presidential election says: Fuck it, let them do whatever, hell we can even gift some to them. Climate is fucked anyways. Lets pretend this is a sandbox game and see what happens. What’s the worst that can happen, die? Hehe I’ve been dying inside and November 5 just cut off my life support.

    So it depends which alter ego you ask. Ye know, like the angel and demon on your shoulders.

    Edit: holy shit its 2AM and I’m wasting time on Lemmy. that just shows how dead on the inside i am… cant sleep, fucking election anxiety.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes. Yes. Yes. DO IT NOW! Buy the equipment and technology from whoever they can. Even if they do it illegally. Countries that do not have nukes are subjects to those that do.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It’s one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment’s notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ukraine is fighting two nuclear armed states… But nahh bro, Ukraine doesn’t need nukes 🤡

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Everyone in this thread is talking like they could. Even if the country wasn’t mired in a war of attrition, the process of building it takes time, expertise, money, and materials. They only have some of those. And not any money.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It would take them only a few months. Ukraine is filled with Soviet nuclear technology and Soviet nuclear engineers. They have nuclear reactors. Ukraine is richer than North Korea, and they have their own uranium mines. North Korea spent a couple billion on their nukes, but Ukraine’s military budget is $82B a year, so they could easily surpass North Korea.

      Geopolitics experts agree that Ukraine could build a nuke if they wanted to. The issue is that the west definitely would not want to see a world where countries threatened by Russia turn to nuclear proliferation.

      Here’s a video from a Danish military analyst talking about the decisions that have to be made on how to secure Ukraine after the war:

      https://youtu.be/aTiunvocl5c

      It’s important to note, Ukraine is willing to freeze the front line now in return for security guarantees. But If the US or the EU don’t step up to end the war soon, Ukrainian nuclear engineers will.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That was an interesting watch, but he doesn’t put a clear timeline on how long it would take. I found this article that notes that:

        The Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant in the city of Kamianske in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast processed uranium ore for the Soviet nuclear program, preparing yellowcake, an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ore.

        It goes on to interview a couple of engineer about what they could be expected to produce, by when, and with what level of discresion:

        Robert Kelley, an engineer with over 35 years of experience in the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons complex, said that it would be possible for Ukraine to create a primitive uranium fission bomb within five years.

        “It’s a fairly simple thing to do in the 21st century,” he told the Kyiv Independent.

        It would be much more difficult for Ukraine to build a plutonium fission bomb, and it would be harder to hide, Kelley argued. It would take five to 10 years to build a plutonium reactor, he added.

        In contrast with a fission bomb, a “hydrogen bomb would be incredibly complicated,” Kelley said. “No way in the world would (Ukraine) be able to create it,” he added.

        Kelley also said that Ukraine might be able to create a crude nucleardevice without assistance from other countries. For a more complex nuclear weapon, it would have to buy technology abroad, he added.

        A Russian nuclear expert and a Ukrainian nuclear expert both confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Ukraine is capable of producing a nuclear bomb, adding that it would likely take years. The Russian expert was speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, and the Ukrainian expert was not authorized to talk to the press about the issue.

        “Ukraine would certainly have the knowhow and resources to become a nuclear weapons state if it made the political decision to do so,” Lavikainen said. “The technology required is not out of reach for many countries, and certainly not for Ukraine since it housed crucial elements of the Soviet nuclear weapons complex when it was still part of the USSR.”

        “Ukraine could develop both nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles since it possesses the necessary military industry, uranium deposits, and nuclearenergy sector,” Lavikainen continued.

        Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, was more cautious, saying that creating a nuclear bomb “is not impossible” for Ukraine. But, it “will take years, a lot of money, and most likely external support, at least on the equipment side.”

        “Ukraine does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture and maintain a nuclear arsenal; it does not have fissile materials, enrichment capacity, plutonium production, most of the elements that go into a nuclear weapon capability,” he added.

        Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear deterrence specialist at theGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, also said that Ukraine faces challenges if it decides to create a nuclear bomb.

        “Ukraine surely has the scientific prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program,” but “acquiring the necessary fissile materials is neither cheap nor fast nor very easy to do in secret,” he added.

        The nuclear weapons expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the most primitive nuclear bomb program focused on uranium centrifuges could cost around $100 million. A plutonium bomb program would cost around $1 billion, he added.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Good detail in that article. With regard to plutonium, Sweden had a plutonium breeding reactor disguised as a civilian power plant called Ågestaverket. I think that Ukraine would be able to use an existing reactor for this, or retrofit it. But yeah, any Ukrainian nuclear program would obviously become a huge target by the Russian military, and potentially other nuclear states. Ideally these installations would be underground like Ågestaverket was. Even more ideal would be military guarantees from NATO.

          • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t know anything about the laws limiting transfer of fissile material and may violate issues with NATO membership. I’m not seeing the upside for Sweden to do any of this.

            And from a quick search makes it sound like decommissioning of Ågestaverket began in 2020 and should be done in 2025. So the plant would need to be, essentially, rebuilt.

            Next, the nuclear program was shut down in 1961 because they didn’t have any Pu-240 to refine into Pu-247. Finally, when the program did exist, they had to get their heavy water from Norway. Heavy water allows them to use yellow cake directly for fissile material, but they still use light water but need an enrichment program. So, technically it’s a long way still.

            • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              It’s not confirmed publicly, but Sweden likely ended their nuclear weapons program in the 60s or 70s after pressure from the US. They finally decommissioned Ågestaverket in 2020, though they kept the facility open until then, presumably as a fallback option. Sweden has uranium deposits, so it would have been possible to build nuclear weapons during the Cold War if needed.

              Now with NATO membership, they have instead imported American nuclear weapons to keep on Swedish soil. Not sure what will happen with their Swedish-American SOFA with Trump, it’s possible that Sweden will fall back on British and French nukes.

              But yeah, I mentioned Ågestaverket, since its an example of a civilian reactor that was used for nuclear weapons, something that Ukraine could potentially do as well if the decision came to proliferate.

              • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                They could eventually spin it up, but would take longer than the months you first mention. Technical and material issues exist between yellow cake and weapons grade fissile material that the Ukrainian may not have access to (heavy water or plutonium). Even if they do, transforming their current civilian system would take several years optimistically.

                Ultimately, that’s my biggest issue is time. It’s not months but years.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think you are missing something important. Oh yeah, they gave their nuclear arms back to Russia for peace. Who would have thought their brothers and sisters would betray them, after all they are practically the same people.

      This is what makes the whole thing just fucking crazy. It would be like if Puerto Rico voted to be an independent nation and signed a peace treaty with the US. Then less then a couple decades goes by and the US starts attacking them when there are more Puerto Rican’s in the US than in Puerto Rico. It does not make any sense.

      • yrmp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        Your analogy doesn’t work because Trump people hate latinos and it absolutely would make sense for a Trump/GOP controlled USA to go back on an agreement like that.

        Hell they’d probably even start using PR for nuclear testing again if the fallout would blow over other Latin countries. After all, it’s just “an island full of garbage in the ocean.”

        /s (I knew what you meant I just hate all of it)

  • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won’t end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).

    So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      The reluctance to authorize long range missile strikes into Russia is based on the fear of nuclear strikes on the US/authorizers. The war was always meant to keep oil prices high and trickle through weapon sales until the last Ukrainian.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    30 days ago

    Yep.

    The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.

    Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      30 days ago

      Nuclear programs need a lot more leadtime than that, that’s why if Biden had balls he’d give them some of ours before it’s too late

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Idk how easy it easy to just build a nuke… I feel like the long range missile is the hard part, right? The actual nuclear part isn’t quite so complex. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        He said they could make a bomb in a couple weeks if needed. No specifics on delivery or quality.

        Edit: sounds like kyiv is denying the claim made by some insider. So guess this isn’t likely true.

      • carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        They have a lot of the Soviet weapons design bureaus. Not sure how many of the original designers are still around. The tricky bit will be refining enough uranium or plutonium in a war zone.

  • Modva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do it. Promises from super powers are worthless. Only power itself matters. And all the other countries are aware of it too now.

    • stardust@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, countries will prioritize self preservation and will gladly let even their allies get destroyed to survive. Can’t trust anyone but themselves. Everyone else is just posturing when it is convenient for them.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    wow Putin’s bitch stopping aid to Ukraine? never could’ve seen this coming.

    no kidding though, it took a while but Russia finally did it. they are the superpower now. good news, Europe!

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If they’re allowed to do it, so will others who have signed NPT, like Iran. To be fair, Russia seems to have violated the Budapest Memorandum so Ukraine should at least be allowed to have nuclear weapons, by maybe not develop their own.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      So if they do, should we put boots on the ground?

      I mean it’s the ultimate protection so I’m for it if we, as the west, fails to stand up to putin.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        If Iran starts making nuclear weapons? We’ve done other things like sanctions in the past that seemingly worked. If they just keep doing it then that’s bigger than a U.S. problem.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Iran? You mean the pro-democratic country that got invaded?

          It’s not really the same discussion IMO.