09milk
2hr ago
In an alternate history of nuclear-armed Ukraine, I believe Putin will choose a different country to invade instead
The alt-path will likely start with Ukraine not signing the Budapest Memorandum thus keeping their Soviet nukes, while Ukraine will likely suffer some form of international trade sanction (but not a lot, as the newly created Russia will likely not sanction them to cripple they own nation)
Going into the 2000s, I believe Ukraine will achieve a status similar to pre-2022 Finland, where they will be a Friend of Russia economically, with the promise of not joining NATO, after all, everyone knows there is no benefit for Ukraine to join NATO when they have nukes, thus Russia unironically will feel a lot safer from Ukraine compare to our history
In our history, Ukraine is always a somewhat Russian friendly country before Russia fucked them hard by all the means after 2000, would Russia fuck with the government of a nuclear-armed, Russian friendly Ukraine?
As long as Ukraine demonstrate their discipline on international affairs and don't actively fuck with others, they likely achive at worst the status of Pakistan (who hosted Osama bin Laden without real consequences), likely the status of India (internationally not one give a fuck on what they do internally), at best the status of pre-2022 Finland (Staying friendly to everyone, everyone want them to be the buffer state while giving you some form of trade access), all depends on what Ukrainian can achieve diplomatically
09milk
3hr ago
Budapest Memorandum is always worthless in wording, but ideally should serve as the example of what the global powers are willing to commit for nuclear non-proliferation, which, many years later, is little to none
No country even make the claim that they support Ukraine base on the virtue of giving up nukes, instead of they support Ukraine mainly because it is a defensive war close to Europe
09milk
3hr ago
The critical problem of getting function nukes is enriched uranium, delivery mechanism can be a truck, like the recent Ukrinian drone carrier
While they don't have the launch codes, by definition nukes must be weapon grade enriched uranium, the big dogs are likely bluffing
09milk
16hr ago
Or just buy the tech from France (and in some way Canada) like how most new nuclear country does it, then assemble a few actual working one before you develope the in house tech and logistic to build more
The most important reason for every sane countries to defence Ukraine is nuclear non-proliferation.
Gaddafi served as the original prime counter-example of nuclear non-proliferation. Obama et al. can still marginally justify the action with human right violation (to which, as a realist, I totally disagree, in my opinion they should protect Gaddafi at all cost, to set the example of what the world are willing to do for you with the virtue of giving up nuclear)
Ukraine now being the newest example of why you should not give up nuke and instead one should seek it. Obama and Trump 1 failed nuclear non-proliferation by not helping Ukraine in the 2014 Crimean war with everything they can, under the context of Budapest Memorandum. If the Budapest Memorandum failed to protect Ukraine's border, what is the point of giving up nukes?
Then 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War started and once again, Biden and Trump 2 failed them by not protecting Ukraine's border after they give up nuke, and in some way what Biden demostrated by not wanting to esculate with Russia, and what Trump 2 is demostrating with his esculating action against Iran, is that nuclear weapons will protect you
With these 2 ongoing conflicts, there is no way any rational non-nuke country support nuclear non-proliferation anymore, any real support of such is basically treason.
It would not surprise me if more are secreatly developing nukes now, and announce the possesion of nuclear weapons in 10-15 years, or even attempt to deceive others by announcing the possesion while not actually have one or announce it to gain time while only being close to getting one.
Edit 1: For everyone how said Ukraine don't have the launch code: There is a saying that government with access to nuclear weapons is more stable from oursiders due to the risk of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist. If terrorists are said to be capable of using nuclear weapons from arbitrary country, a functioning industrialized economy with actual nuclear weapon engineers and nuclear scientist, should be able to make use of those USSR nukes
09milk
1mo ago
The real reason we haven't had such a terrible war since WW2 is that we have WW2 in living cultural memory
I would like to put a counter argument on this, WW2 happened not long after WW1, many argued that WW2 is the extend of WW1 and it's peace deal, but a costly war in living cultural memory doesn't stop another new war entirely, although it certainly help (USA being the isolationist and UK's appeasement policy certainly trace their root back to the costly WW1)
09milk
4mo ago
I think @wlxd is refering to both world war, where US pretended to be a neutral party while helping the allies, to a point where US directly decleared war on Germany during WW1, and Japan was being forced their hand due to US embargo
If US stay out of both world war with the reasoning of "China/France/Britain are out side of America and thus outside the responsibility of the US anyway", EU won't even exist in the first place, or called themselves the Third Reich instead
I always refer to this video lecture as a counter argument of why, at the time, the decision to invade Iraq can be justified by US/UK head of governement
It detailed the information available at the time for US/UK, then laid out the potential internal political backfire in case of Iraq actually having WMD and used it
After listening to the lecture, to me it always seems like invading Iraq is the rational move at the time with the available intel, while simultaneously and evidently a wrong decision after the fact as we gain more information due to the war
More options
Context Copy link