PDA

View Full Version : Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker



Loki
03-11-2014, 03:26 AM
Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/10/ukraine-nuclear/6250815/)

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.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said lawlessness "now rules in eastern regions of Ukraine as a result of the actions of fighters of the so-called 'right sector' with the full connivance" of Ukraine's authorities.

Rizanenko and others in Ukraine say the pact it made with the United States under President Bill Clinton was supposed to prevent such Russian invasions.

The pact was made after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and became Russia, leaving the newly independent nation of Ukraine as the world's third largest nuclear weapons power.

The communist dictatorship that was the Soviet Union had based nuclear missiles in republics it held captive along its border with Europe, and Ukraine had thousands. World powers urged Ukraine to give up the arsenal but its leaders balked, expressing fear they needed the weapons to deter Russia from trying to reverse Ukraine's independence.

To reassure the Ukrainians, the United States and leaders of the United Kingdom and Russia signed in 1994 the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" in which the signatories promised that none of them would threaten or use force to alter the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.
Ukraine missiles

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/96931a5be04fb46dbfaddc68894b428b5fc58ed5/c=0-0-1753-1319&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/03/10//1394497833000-AFP-A04-UKRAINE-31-DESTRUCTION.jpg

They specifically pledged not to militarily occupy Ukraine. Although the pact was made binding according to international law, it said nothing that requires a nation to act against another that invades Ukraine.

The memorandum requires only that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments." Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear warheads in return for the promise.

There is little doubt that Russia has in fact placed its military forces in Ukraine's province of Crimea. Russia's foreign minister has said its troops are there to protect Russian lives and interests.

And Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a "coup" in Kiev has created "a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements."

The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated "with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well."

President Obama has talked to Putin over the phone and said there is no danger to Russians in Ukraine and that they should agree to let international forces enter Crimea so differences can be resolved peacefully, according to the White House.

But Putin insisted to Obama that ethnic Russians in Crimea needed protection and reiterated that the government in Kiev is illegal because the parliament ousted pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych.

"Everyone had this sentiment that for good or bad the United States would be the world police" and make sure that international order is maintained, Rizanenko said of the Budapest pact.

"Now that function is being abandoned by President Obama and because of that Russia invaded Crimea," he said.

"In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine," he said. "If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you."

The White House and U.S. State Department did not respond to e-mails requesting comment.

Rizanenko spoke a day after returning from a visit to the Crimea, where armed Crimeans under orders from Russian commanders blocked him from visiting a Ukrainian border post, he said.

Russian military units have ringed Crimea's borders to block the Ukrainian military from exerting control on the territory, and Ukraine's army cannot defeat Russia's, he said.

Obama had warned Putin of "costs" should he persist in Crimea but the main action against Moscow so far has been a ban on travel to the United States of unnamed persons. Europe and the United States said they are considering economic sanctions against Russia but none have been imposed.

Meanwhile, "all the time Russia is moving more and more troops into Crimea," Rizanenko said. "Only force will influence (Putin's) decision."

Yaroslav
03-11-2014, 03:28 AM
I'm excited for World War III.

Skerdilaid
03-11-2014, 03:29 AM
I like it. They should definitely have them, so should all other countries that border Russia and China!

Loki
03-11-2014, 03:33 AM
It is dated technology. Russia's S-400 would be able to intercept such missiles.

Skerdilaid
03-11-2014, 03:35 AM
Sure thing, but just the knowing that they poses them and can use them, sort of would make em keep their pecker in their pants.

Prisoner Of Ice
03-11-2014, 03:38 AM
It is dated technology. Russia's S-400 would be able to intercept such missiles.

They can just drive it up in a truck.



lol. you're joking, right? borders would be closed.

Also, Ukraine is bankrupt and they need gas from Russia.

Loki
03-11-2014, 03:57 AM
I'm excited for World War III.

It's nothing to be excited about. Millions of people will die.

Yaroslav
03-11-2014, 04:00 AM
It's nothing to be excited about. Millions of people will die.

It would mean Jesus is coming soon, and the resurrection of the dead!

Crn Volk
03-11-2014, 04:02 AM
Where would they get them from?

Stefan_Dusan
03-11-2014, 04:06 AM
Where would they get them from?

They almost definitely have the knowledge (scientists) who could make Ukraine nuclear with the proper materials. How easy they could ahold of enriched Uranium, I have no idea. Anyways it doesn't matter, Russia always controls Crimea. Nuclear Ukraine will be too late to reverse this situation.

Drawing-slim
03-11-2014, 04:32 AM
It was very stupid of them to give up their nuclear bombs to begin with. Any small country that posses nuclear bombs has a monopoly that can only benefit them, with aid money demands they can make to superpowers. And above all securing themselves from bigger bullies like Putin.
I wish Albania finds a way to secure big fat monster nuclear bombs. I should run for Albanian's president seat and dedicate my whole life to finding a way to get nuclear bombs. I would sell my soul to the devil do whatever it takes for Albania to secure some fat nuclear bombs.

Crn Volk
03-11-2014, 04:43 AM
It was very stupid of them to give up their nuclear bombs to begin with. Any small country that posses nuclear bombs has a monopoly that can only benefit them, with aid money demands they can make to superpowers. And above all securing themselves from bigger bullies like Putin.
I wish Albania finds a way to secure big fat monster nuclear bombs. I should run for Albanian's president seat and dedicate my whole life to finding a way to get nuclear bombs. I would sell my soul to the devil do whatever it takes for Albania to secure some fat nuclear bombs.

They could have kept them and become part of the Russian Federation. That was the deal.

Fortis in Arduis
03-11-2014, 04:43 AM
A Ukrainian on another forum said that it would take them three months to make a nuke.

After this, no country on earth will give up its nukes ever again.

What a wonderful world. :rolleyes:

Crn Volk
03-11-2014, 04:48 AM
A Ukrainian on another forum said that it would take them three months to make a nuke.

After this, no country on earth will give up its nukes ever again.

What a wonderful world. :rolleyes:

In 3 months Eastern Ukraine and Crimea will be part of Russia

Skerdilaid
03-11-2014, 04:50 AM
A Ukrainian on another forum said that it would take them three months to make a nuke.

After this, no country on earth will give up its nukes ever again.

What a wonderful world. :rolleyes:

A world with full of cock waving around, wouldn't that be sight for some:laugh:

Äijä
03-11-2014, 05:48 AM
It has proved to be shit, if countries like Pakistan have nukes I dont see why Finland should not have, it does not make us a threat to anyone.

RussiaPrussia
03-11-2014, 05:51 AM
they actually would have now the right, but if they go they can pretty much forget about the EU Agreement and probably have to fear a justified American or Russian Regime change

RussiaPrussia
03-11-2014, 05:52 AM
A Ukrainian on another forum said that it would take them three months to make a nuke.

After this, no country on earth will give up its nukes ever again.

What a wonderful world. :rolleyes:

its bs, for nukes you need to enrich uranium they dont have this technology, russia did it for them

Fortis in Arduis
03-11-2014, 06:01 AM
A world with full of cock waving around, wouldn't that be sight for some? :laugh:

Your dreams have *just* come true:

http://data2.whicdn.com/images/68667286/large.jpg

Skerdilaid
03-11-2014, 06:05 AM
Your dreams have *just* come true:

http://data2.whicdn.com/images/68667286/large.jpg
:pound: Holy fuck, where did you find that?

Fortis in Arduis
03-11-2014, 06:09 AM
:pound: Holy fuck, where did you find that?

I searched for "penis world". Initially, I was thinking of something from Jean-Paul Sartre's "Nausea", but anyway, Alice in Penisland seemed to fit. I am sure you will find future uses for it. :)


According to translated news sources within the country, Ukraine interim representative threatened Russia with nuclear weapons, if Russia does not remove their troops from within the Ukrainian borders.

Mikhail Golovko said in a live interview that,“Russia can not win in this situation, it is a violation of all international norms and guarantees … If they are violated, we reserve the right to recover a nuclear weapon. Resume nuclear status and will be quite different to communicate, “ he said.

Golovko said that Ukraine has all the necessary technology to recreate nuclear weapons, for these purposes must be “3-6 months,”

“They can not accept that Ukraine is moving away from their orbits. Under Yanukovich we were actually a colony of Moscow, signed an agreement … This onerous convulsions, attempts to play the card of Crimea “, he added.

“Crimea patchy, there is a very active group of Tatars … I’m sure that we can resolve … Admiral Igor Tenyukh knows the situation in the Crimea, he can respond appropriately … We have a real chance to cope. There needs cleaning staff … agents of foreign intelligence, “- he said.

The deputy called Russia’s actions ”explicit intervention”.

http://intellihub.com/ukraine-leader-threatens-russia-nuclear-weapons/

Sarmatian
03-11-2014, 07:43 AM
Ukraine have facilities required for enriched uranium production. It's also have uranium deposits on its territory. However there are two major concerns.

First is security. The country is extremely corrupt and there is no person that can querantee the safety of these weapons. It might end up being sold to wrong people with far reaching consequences.

Second is Ukraine's bankrupcy. How can they talk about production and maintenance of nuclear weapons when they can't satisfy basic needs of population at the moment? If they will start the nuclear program now it will most certainly face lack of financing at some stage with such consequences as even more security issues, poor safety with serious negative environmental effects. Do we want another Chernobyl in Europe?