So why shouldn't the UK and the US go to war with Russia?

originally posted by: the3amigos
In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea? It can't be because of democracy and public opinion because back in the 1850s the UK already had elections and nobody in the UK opposed the Crimean war. It's not like people in the US will oppose the US entering the war on Ukraine's side to drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea. So why not?

en.wikipedia.org...

Duh , were Nuclear and Neutron Bombs Available to Europeans in the 1850's ? Dumb De Dumb Dum............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit



I think they were mechanical back then.

And driven to the target by a team of horses.

Meep meep.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

Actually, all 3 of the countries mentioned (plus Ukraine) signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they all agreed to respect the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal. All 3 of the nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia) agreed that they would not engage in direct military conflict with each other over this issue, specifically to avoid the possibility of escalating to a nuclear exchange. The US and UK also agreed to provide Assurance to Ukraine that the terms of the agreement would be enforced, short of actually deploying US or UK troops in direct contact with Russian troops. That's the rationale for why we are supplying arms and money to Ukraine right now; it's the price we agreed to pay in order to have one less nuclear-armed country in the world. That's what makes it our circus and our monkeys.

Gun grabbers take note! This is a great example of why you should never give up your weapons for a promise of security. It's not like you get your weapons back if the promise is broken.

If Ukraine had rejected the agreement and kept their nuclear arsenal, they wouldn't be in this situation.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

And that's the cold hard unfortunate truth of the matter.

If Ukraine had kept her nuclear arsenal, which at the time was the third largest on the planet, Putin would never have had the stones to invade Crimea or anywhere else in Ukraine.

Unfortunately giving it up in good grace turned out to be a bad idea.

There is a lesson to be learned there and whilst not a palatable one, its still rather pertinent.

Personally, i have to wonder why Ukraine did not bother to keep a significant proportion of warheads moth-balled and off the books and buried away for a rainy day.

" why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea?"

Because the majority of the population in these places are ethnic Russians and they were tired of living under Ukrainian control and being bullied by the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian nationalists/Nazis.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

And that's the cold hard unfortunate truth of the matter.

If Ukraine had kept her nuclear arsenal, which at the time was the third largest on the planet, Putin would never have had the stones to invade Crimea or anywhere else in Ukraine.

Unfortunately giving it up in good grace turned out to be a bad idea.

There is a lesson to be learned there and whilst not a palatable one, its still rather pertinent.

Personally, i have to wonder why Ukraine did not bother to keep a significant proportion of warheads moth-balled and off the books and buried away for a rainy day.

Ukraine couldn't use the Russian nukes, they could only be used from Moscow. They were worthless to Ukraine with Russia having the launch capabilities

a reply to: alldaylong
Yes and if you can find the actual map in a museum I am curious to see what is actually written or not in that area. They mention how his maps were modernized in the article. As I zoomed in all the others, the name Ukraine was only really on the colored soviet map that is the first and the superimposed names on the guy you cited from the article.

Why would anyone call that land Ukraine in that time period when the lands were divided in the ethno-geography that you can see? Show me edited maps from the internet all day. Now find the actual books and maps in museums and libraries that were not recently replaced with updated replicas.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

I am sure they could have been back-engineered given the nation's resources.

Russia can't even build aircraft carriers or maintain their subs appropriately without Ukraine.

If they had wished to make those warheads capable it's hardly that far a stretch for them to have done so given their technical capabilities.

How many do you imagine Russia has that are still fully functional and capable of detonation now?

Because if their nuke stores are anything like the rest of their military half of its simply not going to do what it says on the tin.

Hell of a premise to wish to test all the same, so there is that.