Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Government

Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP 498

Posted by samzenpus
from the big-boom dept.
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "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. ... 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

Comments Filter:
  • Your friend in the Antichrist,

    Kim Jong Il

  • 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.'

    Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

    • by bkmoore (1910118)

      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.'

      Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

      It's almost as good as Putin's quote about "local security forces" buying Russian uniforms at any local military surplus store. So in order to protect law and order in my own country, I'm supposed to don the uniform of a foreign country? Now where did I put that old French Foreign Legion ensemble?

    • The irony about that statement is that, if uniformly applied, it would invalidate a great many other things. For example, the lease agreement that Russia signed with Ukraine which permits the former to have a naval base in Sevastopol, and troops to defend it (the same ones that effectively took over the entire peninsula).

  • Sure... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by tgv (254536)

    Sure, give 'm nukes. What could possibly go wrong?

    OTOH, why is this on Slashdot? It's only a Ukranian MP with a wacko idea, probably meant to show his supporters that he's the strong man they seek. Wikipedia sums up his party, Udar, as "UDAR tends to avoid sensitive and polarising subjects and focuses instead on popular topics".

    • Exactly. This is just one MP talking out of stress. It only shows how hot the situation is in the internal discussions. Most likely, he will be disciplined, and if the news catches on, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs might release a rebuttal to the effect of "misinterpreted / not our official position". Non-story.
  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Monday March 10, 2014 @01:08PM (#46447401) Homepage Journal

    Don't think they could do it in time. Sad though it is, the sensible thing would probably have been not to get rid of them in the first place.

  • 1) Rollback Ukraine to previous "territorial integrity", possibly with some bargaining over the structure of a new government.
    2) Russia annexes Crimea after their puppets declare independence and the remainder of Ukraine joins EU (and possibly NATO), starting a new cold war. Ukraine gets screwed over in this case because they don't really have any guarantee that NATO would back them up any more than the current coalition fails to.

  • Ukraine is right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cowwoc2001 (976892) on Monday March 10, 2014 @01:40PM (#46447811)

    This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.

    Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:

    1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
    2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.

    Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.

    And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.

    • Re:Ukraine is right (Score:5, Informative)

      by NoImNotNineVolt (832851) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:08PM (#46448129) Homepage

      Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.

      Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?

  • with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?

    This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine

  • -Aesop Russia has been far too ham fisted and has massively overreacted, however valid their concerns.
  • by jayveekay (735967) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:07PM (#46448105)

    Assume "Paper" is a treaty guaranteeing "Territorial Integrity". Then:

    Rock beats Paper
    Nuke beats Paper
    Nuke beats Rock
    Nuke loses to Nuke (MAD)

    Who would ever play Paper?

  • by SpankiMonki (3493987) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:19PM (#46448257)

    "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"

    I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [wikisource.org] (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

    Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...