Ukraine may have to go nuclear according to lawmakers

The Ukraine has stated that in order to defend itself it may have to go nuclear with the weapons that were left from when it was part of the Soviet bloc.

link

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact "to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." His statements come as Russia raised the possibility it may send its troops beyond the Crimean peninsula on the Black Sea into the eastern half of Ukraine.

I guess it just got real....

reply to post by matafuchs


No, they are so much safer now that they can't defend themselves and deter aggression with nuclear weapons. And they certainly won't try to reacquire them in a hurry and be in a physical circumstance and state of mind more likely to use them. In fact, what the heck are these violence nuts doing free anyway, why doesn't someone arrest them.

Oh, OK, so problem solved then?

reply to post by matafuchs


it may have to go nuclear with the weapons that were left from when it was part of the Soviet bloc.


What was left over..? The missiles are gone...what are they going to go nuclear with? Their Vodka?

Matafuchs, did you read the article?

I hope they hold elections before they make any decisions that will shape the future of the region for years to come. Once this line is crossed it will be hard to go back and it will have ramifications far beyond Ukraine.

isn,t just about every country against what russias up to?why would they have to do that.think anything nuclear is well off the agenda.

So the new government is trigger happy with the nukes they have. That does not sound like a government that we should be supporting. A nuclear attack against Russia will lead to the same to Ukraine, that will destroy most of the people in Europe. I think those hot heads in Ukraine should be removed....they are not smart at all. If they would use them against Russia, they would use them against anyone they have a disagreement with in the future.

reply to post by facelift

What was left over..? The missiles are gone...what are they going to go nuclear with? Their Vodka?

Probably potatoes.

This is seriously the most dumbass statement I can imagine being given during this crisis. "We are going to escalate needlessly with something we don't have!"

I almost feel like it was planned in order to give Russia the impetus to invade the rest of the country. I'm really looking forward to this whole thing being resolved. I personally think Russia manufactured the whole thing in order the seize Crimea at the 'expense' of the previous flip flopping sometimes pro Russian leader. Get him ousted, have justification (flimsy as it is) to seize a highly strategic portion of the country, secure some oil rights off the coast and make the EU and US look like bitches. The Ukraine is insanely important to Russia and the possibility of the country becoming more pro West was completely unacceptable. Destabilize, take over, create new crisis and repeat.

rickymouse
So the new government is trigger happy with the nukes they have. That does not sound like a government that we should be supporting. A nuclear attack against Russia will lead to the same to Ukraine, that will destroy most of the people in Europe. I think those hot heads in Ukraine should be removed....they are not smart at all. If they would use them against Russia, they would use them against anyone they have a disagreement with in the future.

Agree fully with this. The situation does not need half-assed rhetoric or unsound thinking of this nature.

WikiLeaks cables show how the US disarmed Ukraine - Source

dreamingawake
WikiLeaks cables show how the US disarmed Ukraine - Source

I think the Ukraine was part of START and that was an eventual decline in the number of nuclear warheads, it didn't happen overnight. BTW, it seems there is a bit of misinformation floating around that is trying to make the US look like the good guy. In another post I wrote, you might want to look at the articles;

ATS Topic

We have a real problem with how this is being spun. If the Ukrainians in Crimea want to separate, that is their right. If they want to merge with Russia, that is also their right. Apparently there will be a referendum to decide the outcomes. This has nothing to do with aggression by Putin because he is mainly sitting back and waiting on a vote. As an example, if the north eastern US states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont) wanted to secede from the US and decided they wanted to be with Canada, and the Canadian PM welcomed them, is that Russia's business? I think not, so Crimea seceding from the Ukraine and joining Russia is not the US' or anyone else's business.

Cheers - Dave

Fair enough Dave....but all of this was agreed about long ago and by all the Ukrainians eastern and western alike....everyone signed on the agreement then......Eastern Ukrain is forbidden by that agreement from holding such a vote on succession....

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Some years ago a friend told me that not all the nukes were accounted for after the dissolution of the USSR. One theory was the Israelis got them. Maybe they didn't.

Before Russia's current actions in the Ukraine and Crimea I considered Putin to be a strong man doing good for his country. Now I think he's a very dangerous man.

bobs_uruncle

I think the Ukraine was part of START and that was an eventual decline in the number of nuclear warheads, it didn't happen overnight. BTW, it seems there is a bit of misinformation floating around that is trying to make the US look like the good guy. In another post I wrote, you might want to look at the articles;

ATS Topic

We have a real problem with how this is being spun. If the Ukrainians in Crimea want to separate, that is their right. If they want to merge with Russia, that is also their right. Apparently there will be a referendum to decide the outcomes. This has nothing to do with aggression by Putin because he is mainly sitting back and waiting on a vote. As an example, if the north eastern US states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont) wanted to secede from the US and decided they wanted to be with Canada, and the Canadian PM welcomed them, is that Russia's business? I think not, so Crimea seceding from the Ukraine and joining Russia is not the US' or anyone else's business.

Cheers - Dave

Exactly, Dave. They are trying to decide their own fate.

reply to post by aboutface


It is astounding that so many people are buying into the propaganda being put out on both sides. You want to see the truth watch the vice news videos on youtube.




Lies on top of lies. If Russia is holding the high ground why are the letting scum bag killers from other countries help out. These men are known for ethnic cleansing. Any news coming from RT is propaganda. Even news anchors at RT are quitting and speaking out. I wonder what the appeasers will say when scum bag Putin does not stop.........If I was in Poland I would be a little worried.

reply to post by rickymouse


That's why I believe the main objective should be ensuring the situation doesn't deteriorate to the point where elections are not held as planned. If this guy actually wants to run a campaign on building nukes or some of the other extreme measures that have been suggested by the interim government then I say good luck with that.

reply to post by SubTruth


Well I come from a unique perspective. In Canada we call it separatism and since I am quite familiar with the situation, propaganda is how people will interpret years of attitudes, injustices, resentments on both sides. Add religion to the mix, plus language and business barriers resulting from all of that, throw in some politicians along with their alliances, add the people with entrenched positions and we get Crimea.

stirling
Fair enough Dave....but all of this was agreed about long ago and by all the Ukrainians eastern and western alike....everyone signed on the agreement then......Eastern Ukrain is forbidden by that agreement from holding such a vote on succession....

Time passes, things change.

Cheers - Dave

Yes I did read the article and yes I know about the treaty and the disarmament. From the quote, they sounded pretty sure they could go back to a nuclear threat and my wonder was how,why and who. Sorry, I should have made it a bit clearer in the OP.

The Ukraine at one time had the 3rd largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. This was not a thing that they did or accepted easily. In 1994 they gave them up. In 2009 there was more reassurance that they would be protected and this was at a time when things were already not good in Georgia. I think they very well knew then what was next.

The Ukraine has over a dozen plants in operation and although it is fairly low non-weapons grade who is to say they do not have a secret program like Iran?

or, maybe it is not a ICBM issue but the possibility of dirty bomb situation. Fringe groups gets material, makes bomb, hits Russia, war is on...

I was trying to give some food for thought and see if anyone else thought it could happen.

reply to post by matafuchs


We'd be idiots if we believed that Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons. Why would a country allied with Russia do that. It may also be Russia's deployed nuclear weapons that they are talking about. I am sure Russia has it's nuclear weapons in all the strongly allied countries.