Trump is in talks with Russia to end the war

[putnam6]

Ha ha Ukraine had nukes since 1922-1994 without incident. Putin's Russia has goals that need to be realized. ...and North Korea and Russia are responsible having nukes? Didn't Putin recently threaten using nukes?

Let's get real, the only way to stave off war is to have a strong nuclear armament as a deterrent.

HA HA "1922" you are wrong there and wrong about the mood of Ukrainian nuke missiles situation contemporaneous to the events 


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024...n-war.html

• Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)
• Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved—the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well—viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill—named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar—to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided “a minimum” of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.
• Finally, Yeltsin forgave Ukraine mountains of debt for oil and gas that Russia had supplied, and Clinton promised to persuade the International Monetary Fund and the G7 nations to pay Ukraine’s energy imports into the future. At a meeting with Clinton, according to a memorandum of their conversation, Kravchuk said, “When we have stabilization of our currency and private investment for Ukraine, then everyone will understand that the agreement signed by the three presidents [to remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine] was the only possible step.” At a meeting with both Clinton and Yeltsin two days later, Kravchuk said, “There is no alternative to nuclear disarmament.”

[guyfriday]

I'm sorry but what?

Nobody had nukes back in 1922, and Ukraine wasn't anything other than a territory from 1922 till the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[putnam6]

We have ponied up:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countri...to-ukraine

"The U.S. has committed 0.55% of its GDP toward Ukraine aid, which falls below the percentages committed by Germany (1.31%), the U.K. (0.93%) and Canada (0.67%)."

Don't believe Trump's lies.

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

[guyfriday]

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

Good point, numbers matter when used correctly. From the article linked:

Global aid to Ukraine since 2022 has reached a staggering 400 billion euros committed as of December 2024, or about $430 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The group is trying to keep up with all of the commitments in its Ukraine Support Tracker, which keeps tabs on government-to-government transfers of military, financial and humanitarian aid into Ukraine. The Germany-based institute also tracks allocations, which it defines as aid earmarked and/or specified for delivery in the near term.
 
The majority of committed support by country has come from the United States, whose total aid commitment is valued at about $128 billion. The U.S. is followed by the United Kingdom and Germany for highest commitments overall. The European Union as a whole has committed approximately $124 billion in aid to Ukraine.

So, in the end the US is giving Ukraine more than the EU is as a whole. People shouldn't get blindsided by creative statistics. Good job Putnam6 for calling that out.

[quintessentone]

I'm sorry but what?

Nobody had nukes back in 1922, and Ukraine wasn't anything other than a territory from 1922 till the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Did I read this wrong?

Ukraine, formerly a republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1922–1991, once hosted Soviet nuclear weapons and delivery systems on its territory. The former Soviet Union had its nuclear program expanded to only four of its republics: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.

Wikipedia

It may read that Ukraine was a republic of the USSR from 1922-1991, so then the year changes to the WWII war time that Ukraine had nuclear weapons.

The point is, Ukraine has been very responsible with the nukes. When did they threaten to use them? Which one country in the world ever used them, when it was unnecessary?

[quintessentone]

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

U.S. says they paid too much and the EU says they paid more than the U.S. Who is right?

[quintessentone]

We have ponied up:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countri...to-ukraine

"The U.S. has committed 0.55% of its GDP toward Ukraine aid, which falls below the percentages committed by Germany (1.31%), the U.K. (0.93%) and Canada (0.67%)."

Don't believe Trump's lies.

Facts and realities don't seem to matter to some Americans...no surprise.

[putnam6]

Did I read this wrong?

Wikipedia

It may read that Ukraine was a republic of the USSR from 1922-1991, so then the year changes to the WWII war time that Ukraine had nuclear weapons.

The point is, Ukraine has been very responsible with the nukes. When did they threaten to use them? Which one country in the world ever used them, when it was unnecessary?

Come on read the Slate link provided twice... no matter how we feelz now contemporaneously the feelz were completely different for the decision-makers at least.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024...n-war.html

Quote:• Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)
• Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved—the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well—viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill—named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar—to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided “a minimum” of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.
• Finally, Yeltsin forgave Ukraine mountains of debt for oil and gas that Russia had supplied, and Clinton promised to persuade the International Monetary Fund and the G7 nations to pay Ukraine’s energy imports into the future. At a meeting with Clinton, according to a memorandum of their conversation, Kravchuk said, “When we have stabilization of our currency and private investment for Ukraine, then everyone will understand that the agreement signed by the three presidents [to remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine] was the only possible step.” At a meeting with both Clinton and Yeltsin two days later, Kravchuk said, “There is no alternative to nuclear disarmament.”

[Oldcarpy2]

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

So % of GDP can just be waved away?

No. It's just common sense.

And no, you have not spent $350 billion. Another Trump lie.

As for the friend in the pub thing, that doesn't wash as you are ignoring little things like agreements the US entered into, etc.

[quintessentone]

Come on read the Slate link provided twice... no matter how we feelz now contemporaneously the feelz were completely different for the decision-makers at least.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024...n-war.html

That looks like an opinion piece, now Ukraine is asking themselves 'why?' did they give up their nukes. Lesson learned.