Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Military Government

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

Comments Filter:
  • by Darth Snowshoe ( 1434515 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:17PM (#46447519)

    We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.

    "Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.

  • Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:35PM (#46447749) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:37PM (#46447773) Journal

    > Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?

    As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?

  • Ukraine is right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cowwoc2001 ( 976892 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:40PM (#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.

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:48PM (#46447891)

    Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.

    The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.

    Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine [] - 12 Feb 2008
    Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield [] - 20-02-2007

  • Re:Riiiight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aliquis ( 678370 ) <> on Monday March 10, 2014 @02:59PM (#46448013) Homepage

    Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.

  • Re:Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daem0n1x ( 748565 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:07PM (#46448103)

    You mean, like in Kosovo? Wasn't the West's main excuse to steal Kosovo from Serbia that most of the population was of Albanian origin? I fail to see how the West, having set such a precedent, can justify that Crimea is such an integral part of Ukraine, when most of its inhabitants are Russian.

    But this is not about justice, fairness or anything. This is just hardcore geopolitics. Done in the same childish and short-sighted way as always. Putting fanatics in power in a Russia-satellite country to piss off the Russians... when have you last heard of such a move? Let me give you a hint, it usually blows right back in your face.

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:13PM (#46448189)

    You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.

    Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:24PM (#46448291)

    I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:32PM (#46448379)

    The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors

    WTF do you think Ukraine is? Giving nukes to an unstable country with a openly hostile relationship with its nuclear neighbor is FUCKING INSANE.

    Would you support Russia just handing over a shitload of nukes to Cuba? North Korea? Iran? You know, to protect them from U.S. invasion?

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:41PM (#46448509)

    Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.

  • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:52PM (#46448643)

    What I think isn't getting talked about is that this is a much broader political threat. Ukraine gave up it's nukes under the assurance that the interested parties would protect it from each other. Russia has now reneged on that treaty, and the MP is reminding the US, Great Britain, and the world that we have an obligation to intervene.

    It might be tempting to simply let Russia get away with this and avoid the threat of renewed nuclear war (cold or otherwise), but if we do that we also tell every other nation that has disarmed, or is considering disarming, that we cannot be trusted to honor our obligations under those treaties, severely undermining decades of work on disarmament.

  • Re:Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:58PM (#46448709) Journal

    Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents.

    You're deliberately distorting the issue. One of the first actions of the new government was to repeal a law about regional languages signed by Yanukovich that is widely believed to be flawed both inherently and procedurally - this was repealed among several other such laws. This reverted the country to the language laws that were in place since 1989 (back when it was still the Ukrainian SSR). A committee was immediately formed to author a new law to replace the repealed one, and in the meantime the acting president has vetoed the repeal of the old law, citing concern about the interim period.

    The whole diatribe about racist assholes is just verbatim Russian propaganda. If they are so racist, why did Lviv hold a "Russian language appreciation day"? Why did the Right Sector troops participated in the burial of several observant Jews who died on the barricades of Maidan (presided by a rabbi, no less)? Why do the majority of Russian speakers in Kiev say that they want Putin to fuck off?

    For that matter, why is that the new government in Crimea is led by outright criminals? The new prime minister, Aksenov, had criminal record for assault and extortion back in 90s. Why are the pro-Russian figures in Eastern Ukraine outright Nazis, like Gubarev, the wannabe "people's mayor" of Kharkov, who turned out to be an ex-member of Russian National Unity, a neo-Nazi organization with swastika as an emblem?

  • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @04:04PM (#46448805)

    So, you'd have no problems with Russia picking up bits and pieces of various countries, including, say, France, Germany, and the UK?

    Personally, I doubt anyone will do anything this time. Or next time. We'll wait till the choice is "stop them or they're across the Rhine"...and then it'll get ugly. 1940-style ugly.

  • by aaaaaaargh! ( 1150173 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @04:23PM (#46449001)

    Contrary to what your propaganda sources claim there is not the slightest doubt that Putin has violated public international law and basically all existing treaties between Russia and the Ukraine. It also doesn't take much intelligence to see who's the bad guy here, namely the one who sends masked soldiers as thugs into a peaceful neighboring country claiming they are there for "protection", besieging army bases and threatening & beating up inhabitants who do not speak Russian. The act is particularly evil, because the Russian and the Ukrainian speaking people in the Ukraine never had any problems getting along with each other, and now Putin's thugs are creating unrest in order to destabilize the new government in Kiev.

    It's a fucking disgrace and you know it.

  • by qbast ( 1265706 ) on Monday March 10, 2014 @04:30PM (#46449103)
    And what other chance Iran has to avoid US invasion? It is coming sooner or later.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:58PM (#46450111)

    I have regular access to both Russian and American news sources. I am an American, and most people would consider me a rather hawkish conservative. But I do have a Russian wife, and many of my closest friends are Russian or Ukrainian.

    I have no love for Putin.

    But the situation in Ukraine is *not* what you think it is if you're following the US media. It may be that Russian influence is causing problems in Crimea, but you should also know that that portion of the country is hugely ethnic Russian, and strongly in favor of Russian rule.

    Furthermore, the new Ukrainian "government" has really staged a revolution, and hardly can be said to have popular backing. The leaders of the new government are a bunch of thugs, with *strong* ties to neo-Nazi fascism and came to power through violent means.

    The old government in Kiev was corrupt, and needed to go. The president had signed an agreement and a plan was in place for an orderly transition to a more democratic government. The "revolutionaries" couldn't wait for the indicated time, and basically jumped the gun with a coup. Putin is right in that regard.

    While I wish Russia would stay out of it, and I am not really sure that Russian "sympathesizers" in Crimea don't have official backing from Russia, I can also see the point of wanting to inject some stability in a region where there are both cultural ties and geopolitical considerations for Russian security.

    The best thing would be if everyone would back off a bit, and an formal vote -- with international observers from both the West and Russia -- were held. My guess is that there are actually a couple of votes needed. One to elect a new government (or possibly confirm the existing one, transforming it from an "illegal" government formed by forceful coup into one that is democratically elected), and possibly one for Crimea to determine its fate as either a part of Ukraine, a part of Russia, or possibly as an entirely new state.

    I have never been more angry with US media than I have with their handling of this Ukrainian situation. Their handling is extremely biased, to the point of completely yellow journalism. I highly recommend paying attention to other sources. The Russian media is of course hardly objective -- it is state controlled after all, and you can't watch Russian news without seeing Putin on screen talking at least 30% of the time (I think Putin secretly wanted to be a TV star). But, I've found information made available via BBC to be far more objective, and trustworthy, at least in this matter, than our local American media.

    Do the research, and try to get the facts. Do not trust US media to give it to you clearly. I don't understand the reasons for the bias, but I guess a combination of post-Soviet bias combined with the fact that "bad" news sells, and what could be worse news than a highly aggressive Russia threatening Europe?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!