Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP 498
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.'"
Re:Riiiight (Score:2, Informative)
There's an existence proof that it can be done in four years, if someone is willing to devote sufficient resources to it.
Re:Riiiight (Score:5, Informative)
Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.
Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power [bbc.co.uk]
Missile [nti.org]
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:5, Informative)
But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.
"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.
Re:The importance of a strong military (Score:3, Informative)
I already posted this above:
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget Poland was fighting a two front war. Germans on one side, Russians on the other.
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:2, Informative)
You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.
There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup [wordpress.com].
Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.
And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.
So, an "invasion"? Not clear.
As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.
Re:Ukraine is right (Score:5, Informative)
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?
USA is obligated to...well, not much (Score:5, Informative)
"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!
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Informative)
They have a prior agreement to be in Crimea to secure their naval base in Sevastopol. They certainly don't have any prior agreement to blockade and assault Ukrainian army bases and barracks and border posts.
This isn't even to mention the uniformed troops with no identification patches, which everybody knows are Russian (by their own numerous admissions when asked), but which Russia refuses to acknowledge outright. That alone is a war crime.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37 [icrc.org]:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
Also the use of the Night Wolves [telegraph.co.uk] violates article 43 [icrc.org]:
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I do realize that. The problem is that Russian has two distinct words denoting Russian ethnicity/self-identification ("russkiy") and citizenship ("rossiyanin") which does not exist in English. The soldiers in the videos use the word that denotes citizenship. Not to mention various other slip ups (some have even named the place of origin where their units are normally stationed; heck, there was one guy from Pskov VDV who was openly wearing a cap with it inscribed!).
Anyway, at this point, believing that tens of thousands of troops, all dressed in brand spanking new Russian digital camo (which was only adopted a few years before and not used by any other ex-Soviet republic), carrying the best gear that Russian army has at its disposal (Pecheneg, AS Val etc), and riding around on BTRs with Russian flag colors on the tips of their exhausts, are some kind of "spontaneously organized local self defense force" requires going so far beyond Occam's razor that it's not even funny. Anyone who seriously believes that there are no Russian troops in Crimea is either not familiar with the facts, or plainly retarded, or is intentionally misrepresenting the issue.