Musk's accusation was a reaction to this:
And this, tweeted by Kelly: "Donald Trump is trying to weaken Ukraine’s hand and we are owed an explanation. If Putin gains ground he won’t agree to a ceasefire and will eventually threaten a NATO ally and this puts American troops and the American people at risk."
Posts
141 comments:
Democrat bundler Lindy Li says Saint Mark Kelly has been cheating on his wife, Gabby Gifford. What a prince!
The trouble is what does "stand with Ukraine" even mean? Was Biden "standing with Ukraine" when he gave them enough weapons to prolong but not win the war? Was it "standing with Ukraine" to keep them in the meat grinder of a land war they cannot win?
"Protect Ukraine's Security" = = American soldiers on the ground, in yet another forever war.
NO - Mark Kelly - NO. The answer is NO. NO. NO.
Mark Kelly - send your kid off to die. Not ours.
Kelly certainly is a patriot - for Ukraine. And I'm sure he "stands by Israel" and cries every time he visits the wailing wall.
Musk is 100 percent correct about globalist Senators like Kelly. They don't seem to care much about their home state, instead they love some foreign country that has nothing to do with security of the USA. Leaving aside the immorality of keeping a war gong thats killing hundreds of thousands of young men, its a waste of tax dollars to give weapons to Zelenskyyyy.
BTW, Ukraine has no freedom. Zelensky refuses to hold elections. The press is censored. Churches have been closed down. Men are dragged off the streets and thrown into the Army. Opposition parties have been disbanded.
But "Muh Democracy" must be defended. LOL.
Hey Mark riddle me this: how do you get $400 billion in foreign aid money into the hands of the corrupt?
Ukraine it.
Interesting take on the ego-political situation - not mentioned in the MSM.
Also - what the EU-left are stomping on free elections.
Europe, NATO Cancel Democracy
"The populist-antipopulist controversy boils over in Romania, where frontrunner Calin Georgescu has been barred from running for a presidential election."
So every single country that is not Russia is now trip wire to bring US into war? The reason we have NATO is to identify the nartions we will fight for. Not belonging to NATO has to have some meaning, namely that whatever our sympathy, we will not go to war on your behalf.
When did this trend of Senators going to foreign countries and acting like they're Secretary of State begin? I bet McCain started it. Its very annoying to constantly hearing Senate jackasses popping off about Foreign affairs, and posting pictures of their visit to Country X, where they met with the Foreign leaders.
We didnt elect Kelly or miss lindsey to run our foreign policy. We elected Trump.
RCOCEAN,
1. Let Kelly go posture in Ukraine.
2. While he's there, cancel his passport.
3. Problem solved!!!
I've noticed the radio silence in the MSM over Romania going full fascist. The leading candidate - polling at 45 percent - was rejected by some commission or court and not allowed to run for President. The Romanian court had earlier stopped an election because this guy was winning.
Its outrageous. This is Democracy dying in NATO/EU and no one in MSM seems to care. Just more evidence their "love of Democracy" is a con-job.
“Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine's security”. I’ll bypass the obvious question “Why”, and ask the next questions, “How? And at what cost?”
But just to bring some perspective let me rephrase his statement: “Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect South Viet Nam’s security”. Do the Democrats really believe this?
“Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine's security”. I’ll bypass the obvious question “Why”, and ask the next questions, “How? And at what cost?”
But just to bring some perspective let me rephrase his statement: “Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect South Viet Nam’s security”. Do the Democrats really believe this?
Kirk- good plan. Let him stay in his adopted country that he loves. Maybe Zelensky will give him a job.
RCOCEAN II said, "Kirk- good plan. Let him stay in his adopted country that he loves. Maybe Zelensky will give him a job."
From what I hear, they need infantry. Mark looks like he's still in decent shape, wink wink.
Another unnecessary controversy. Time to make it clear to Elon that he's there to do a particular job and not to serve as a freelance commenter on everything. Leave some work for the rest of us freelance commenters to do.
Mark Kelly has John McCain's Senate seat. Somebody tell him that he doesn't have to do a McCain impersonation 24/7. McCain's meddling in Syria didn't work out very well and shouldn't be imitated.
I'm sure if Mark Kelly showed up to pilot a jet in Ukraine, he'd be welcomed with psychotic enthusiasm. I have no idea why globalist veterans expect to be enthusiastically thanked for their continuing "service" to the war machine, but the existence of President Trump should be the primary indicator of why that's no longer true. Assuming that Kerry or Dole ever thought it was true.
So Mark Kelly was assigned to go to Ukraine to screw up whatever progress Trump has made in brokering a peace deal. The idea that we are defending democracy and freedom in Ukraine is a joke, illustrated by the fact Zelensky has canceled elections using the war as an excuse (Abraham Lincoln faced re-election in 1864), and he has outlawed opposition parties.
US dirty handed corruption in Ukraine has to run very deep.
The Cheney Democrats are the party of War Grift.
As long as he's over there and believes the Ukraine's cause, why doesn't Mark Kelly just head to the front lines and fight the Russians himself?
What do we expect? Both Kelly and McCain were brown shoe squids.
- Krumhorn
Who will stand with Ukrainians against Kiev? Who will stand with Gazans against Hamas?
"The reason we have NATO is to identify the nartions we will fight for." Yeah, like Turkey. Actually, the reason we have NATO is to keep the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Warsaw Pact, both of which ceased to exist in the early 1990's, from invading West Germany and Poland.
Kelly wears the customary propaganda camo hat much like Zelensky's now boring army green.
Gusty Winds said, "why doesn't Mark Kelly just head to the front lines and fight the Russians himself?"
Elected officials just make the wars. Fighting, dying, and getting horrifically wounded is for their constituents that are thousands of miles away, silly goose.
But I do wish people would stop tossing around that word, traitor. The US Constitution makes it very clear that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The founders knew well how much mischief lies in accusations of treason.
What's amazing about Kelly's tweets about Ukraine is how stupid and childish they are. And how they completely ignore the interests of his own country - the USA. I mean read this:
"The world will become a very cold and lonely place if we continue this ridiculous “screw you, go it alone” foreign policy. It’s dumb and it won’t age well and puts you and your kids and your grandkids at risk. America is the strongest, richest country in the world. We didn’t get there by being bullies like Putin, we got there by leading from the front and bringing our allies. That’s why I’ll continue to share with everyone who will listen why we must keep supporting Ukraine."
Notice that all his jabber doesn't justify supporting Ukraine. And we didn't become the richest most powerful country by sending weapons to foreign countries. Thats a non-sequitor. We got there by building up our economy and producing good engineers, scientists, and inventors.
Finally, we have military bases all over the world, and are sending weapons to Taiwan, Israel, and other countries. We still belong to NATO, and are threatening Iran. Who is pushing a "Screw you, we'll do it alone" foriegn policy? No one.
How many "I stand with Ukraine" liberal white women are willing to send their fighting age sons and daughters into the Ukraine meat grinder? They don't even need to be 'fighting age'. Ukraine is taking sixty-year-olds. AWFLs could send their husbands. Might be a life improvement for the poor bastards.
..as hard as it is to say a former Navy combat pilot isn’t a ‘serious guy’ there is plenty of evidence some of the military heroes who rise into the elite DC ranks find themselves where they are because they’re unflushable turds…
Gusty Winds said, "AWFLs could send their husbands."
Eff that, send the wonderwomen, they're all xena-warrior-princesses. They could scold the Russians to death.
Elite opinion currently favors a continuation of the Ukraine war. Mark Kelly and those who agree with him owe us an explanation of how the continuation of the war will produce a net benefit. Maybe he's right. I doubt it, though.
"Stand With Ukraine" isn't an explanation of anything. If that's all you've got, you haven't got much.
This the problem with the Democrats/MSM and public discourse. Every time anyone doesn't go along with their crazy globalism - no matter how extreme - gets insults and cries of "Appeasement" "Isolationism" and "We cant go it alone!!!". Not to mention to absurd scarmongerng about how pulling troops out or not sending weapons will result in "Fighting them on Miami Beach".
Putin isnt trying to "CONQUER THE WORLD!!!', he and Ukraine have a border dispute. And Putin wants Ukraine neutral - and not part of NATO. Just like we wouldn't want russian troops in Mexico, Russia doesn't want NATO troops in Ukraine.
So what is the problem with making a deal with Russia? There isn't one from a patriotic American viewpoint. The only people who might disagree are globalists and corruptocrats.
I'll worry about Musk calling Kelly a traitor, when the D's stop calling everyone a "Russian Asset". We don't need one-sided tone policing.
When did this trend of Senators going to foreign countries and acting like they're Secretary of State begin? I bet McCain started it.
Ted Kennedy was well known for it, as was George Mitchell. Mitchell did mostly useful stuff, but there is evidence Kennedy was making secret deals with the Soviets in exchange for supporting his run for the Presidency.
A former astronaut insulting the main manufacturer of space-faring equipment with "go build rockets" is ridiculous.
Mark,
They need fighter pilots. just sayin...
Eff that, send the wonderwomen, they're all xena-warrior-princesses.
Yeah, so many movies nowadays have little 105-lb actresses taking on multiple large male villains and throwing them around the room like they were rag dolls. I'm sure the Army would be interested in learning their secrets.
That said, I did know a very small woman who was a 3rd degree black belt in karate. She was attacked by a thug twice her size, but beat the living daylights out of him and put him in the hospital. One of his knees was trashed, crippling him for life.
Can't the NYT get ANYTHING right?
Kelly is not former Navy Combat Pilot. That is an oxymoron.
The airforce has pilots.
The Navy has Naval Aviators. "Piloting", at sea and in the air refers to finding your way around with reference to fixed landmarks and aids to navigation. The airfield will still be in the same place as always.
"Navigation" and Avigation refers to finding your way around with no reference points. To an airfield (carrier) that has probably moved 100 miles or more, not always in the expected direction. In the dark, in terrible weather.
Naval Aviators are a couple of steps up from mere pilots in aviation ability.
(Currently sitting in an aircraft factory watching landing gear struts being made on a CNC machine)
John (Blackshoe Navy) Henry
But I do wish people would stop tossing around that word, traitor. The US Constitution makes it very clear that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The founders knew well how much mischief lies in accusations of treason.
Agreed, but it makes more sense when it's applied to someone who elevates the interests of Ukraine (or Israel, or any other country) over those of the US.
These accusations of treason are pretty ridiculous on both sides of the divide, but they are not symmetric or even comparable.
Maybe a violation of the Logan Act.
Hassayamper said, "That said, I did know a very small woman who was a 3rd degree black belt in karate."
That's all well and good, but I recommend Gunfu.
'he’s not a serious guy' and should 'go back to building rockets'"
Because, "serious" guys run their mouths. They don't build anything.
Dear Senator Kelly: Thank you for your service. Now please shut up. When you tell us, “Everyone wants this war to end, ..." then add more to it, you have simply lost the thread. You should have quit while you were ahead.
Kelly isn't dumb, but the "go back to building rockets" quip is galactically stupid. Thank you for your service, sir, now please sit down.
What is a "NATO Ally?" Sounds like infomercial mumbling, like "certified genuine polyester" or something.
Ukraine is neither a NATO member nor an ally of the Organization or any of its constituent states.
Nobody voted for Musk? Okay, well, no Americans voted for this war. In fact, the results of the most recent election seem to indicate that Americans voted overwhelmingly against it.
JSM
Ambassador's Test
When Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, George Shultz kept a large globe in his office. When newly appointed ambassadors had an interview with him and when ambassadors returning from their posts for their first visit with him were leaving his office, Shultz would test them. He would say, "You have to go over the globe and prove to me that you can identify your country." They would go over, spin the globe, and put their finger on the country to which sent--unerringly.
When Shultz's old friend and former Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield was appointed ambassador to Japan, even he was put to the test. This time, however, Ambassador Mansfield spun the globe and put his hand on the United States. He said: "That's my country."
On June 27, 1993, Shultz related this to Brian Lamb on C-Span's "Booknotes." Said the secretary: "I've told that story, subsequently, to all the ambassadors going out. 'Never forget you're over there in that country, but your country is the United States. You're there to represent us. Take care of our interests and never forget it, and you're representing the best country in the world.' "
I'll worry about Musk calling Kelly a traitor, when the D's stop calling everyone a "Russian Asset". We don't need one-sided tone policing.
@RCOCEAN, +1. For myself I am bothered both by Musk’s casual use of the word “traitor” and even more bothered by Kelly’s interference in Trump’s efforts to bring peace to the region. Democrats come across to sensible people as favoring neverending wars. I get that peace means working for your money instead of living off graft and corruption, but overall peace is a worthy goal.
For the record, Kelly is concretely demonstrating what Trump says about Democrats reflexively opposing whatever Trump proposes. Trump wants to bring peace, so Kelly assumes peace in Ukraine must somehow be evil.
The Democrats think supporting Ukraine is harmless pro-jinho virtue signaling. In reality, funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to one of the world's most corrupt countries is an idea so stupid only a Biden could have come up with it. This has to be a hill to die on for them: the alternative is multiple oligarchs and Congress quislings going to jail. The war is increasingly unpopular and will become even more so.
The important message that Kelly stressed (to me) is that Ukraine is not a NATO ally. As a people, US citizens have never promised, nor has the American people ever approved or even had a chance to vote on, protecting that country militarily. We should be OUT of the Ukraine. If Russia attacks NATO, we will deal with that.
Ukraine is a MONEY LAUNDERING operation only and the only people benefitting are corrupt recipients of the payoffs.
Surprised Kelly didn't bring his wife with him on this trip to get more publicity.
Former Law Clerk.
"Ukraine is a MONEY LAUNDERING operation only and the only people benefiting are corrupt recipients of the payoffs. "
True - and True for many many years.
Not to ask a silly question, but why is it such a good idea to reward Russia (and Vladimir Putin) for invading Ukraine? That seems to be what President Trump is doing unless I am missing something profound. Within the last century, the Russians murdered 4 million Ukrainians via starvation so Ukrainians have ample reason to hate and fear the Russians... . What, exactly, is wrong with Europe and the US providing Ukraine with arms and ammunition to defend itself from a predatory neighbor that is not exactly a leading light of democracy itself?
This is just the latest dust up between the two. In an earlier episode, Kelly disputed Musk's assertion that Biden denied a SpaceX rescue mission of the stranded Space Station Astronauts because of politics.
The war of attrition between Ukraine and Russia of which the US is a major proxy, will never result in a run-em-out-of-the-country rout that all the WarHawks seem to think will happen, if we just continue to send money from our treasury into Ukraine. I've always been bothered by the fact that Ukrainian males are not volunteering en masse' to fight the big bear.
Maybe Biden slow dripping to Ukraine what they needed had something to do with that, but it certainly wasn't a serious effort to stop Putin.
"Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin."
Ok, I'm listening. Tell me what your plan is for quickly ending the war without sending billions more to Ukraine. Can you end the war within 6 months? What are acceptable levels of Ukrainian casualties for you? How would you protect Ukraine's security? Do you want to make Ukraine a member of NATO? So many questions.
Kelly has delusions of being the centrist national candidate the Democrats are looking for.
The president is in charge of foreign policy, not the Senate, and certainly not individual senators (from the minority party, no less). Kelly may not be a traitor, but he is absolutely out of line.
Trump has changed U.S. policy from supporting the war to supporting the peace. IOW, he has made the calculation that America has a greater interest in seeing the war end, and thus eliminating both the expense and risk of an expanded war that we're incurring by keeping it going, than we have in watching Ukraine try (without much promise of success) to dislodge Russia from Ukraine completely. It's hardly an unreasonable position.
NBC seems to think that since Kelly served in the military, he has a better perspective on this. I think that people can get so used to a tool they are familiar with, that it's the only thing they can think of to solve a problem.
Musk should stick to business. He is a giant. Kelly is a Pygmy. The world knows this.
"If Putin gains ground he won’t agree to a ceasefire and will eventually threaten a NATO ally and this puts American troops and the American people at risk."
Putin has already gained all the ground he wants, except for the area inside Russia that Ukraine has invaded. What Putin wants is an agreement recognizing those gains. He is continuing to attack to pressure Ukraine into making that agreement, while they still hold land East of the Dneper. They would be wise to do so.
Doug asks a lot of irrelevant hypotheticals. IF Europe had the arms and supported Ukraine that would be great. But why didn't they HAVE them? And why didn't they GIVE them to the effort?
Elon doesn’t make sense. How all of a sudden is someone a ‘traitor’ for supporting Ukraine when the US still supports Ukraine? Over the past few years we have given Ukraine over 120 billion - approved by both parties. Even now Trump wants a mineral deal with Ukraine that will help them. Our focus may be more on ending the war than continuing it but Ukraine is in no way the enemy.
If Kelly is a public servant, what public service is he providing by being in Ukraine? Does he have a stated mission there? Did he fly there, on the taxpayer's dime? Is he being provided with security, on the taxpayer's dime? Is his mission diplomatic? I thought his job was 'Senator', i.e., responsible for the state's business in Washington, DC. No? Yes, I think he's a contemporary version of John McCain, same treacherous, self-serving vibe.
Doug said, "Not to ask a silly question, but why is it such a good idea to reward Russia (and Vladimir Putin) for invading Ukraine? That seems to be what President Trump is doing unless I am missing something profound."
1.) Russia had legitimate security and ethnic concerns regarding the Donbass vis-a-vis Ukraine long before they ever stepped across the border. In point of fact even before the Berlin Wall fell...that region has always been a powder keg waiting for a match.
2.) No one is rewarding Ukraine so much as they are penalizing the EU and the previous administration for their shoe-on-head idiocy regarding A) the EU's laughable lack of organic defense capability and B) the shortsighted belief that the USA will always be there to fight and die for them. Europeans have been woefully neglectful not only in their obligations towards NATO but to themselves. The Ukraine war has dropped that veil...everyone can see how woefully dependent upon the US they really are. It's time Europeans come to terms with realities they've been unwilling to face. The all-you-can eat blood-buffet is closed.
3.) NATO, the EU, and the USA have not only repeatedly reneged and lied to Russia about implementation of agreements they've signed, but have led Ukraine and the Ukrainian people down a primrose path based on those lies. Russia's concerns are not unfounded, and they aren't necessarily incorrect when they - especially Lavrov - have said that NATO is "agreement incapable". The Minsk agreement was an absolute pooch-screw and a screwup squarely in the West's corner.
4.) Winners on battlefields dictate terms. Despite massive assistance including literal hand-holding and specops on the ground Ukraine has been unable to produce the results needed to secure their strategic goals and is now flailing about desperately to bring strategic partners into a war with Russia directly. Utterly ridiculous behavior. This has less to do with rewarding Russia than it does Russia being in the position to accept terms favorable to it.
Ds long ago lost the Founders'/Framers' sense of what freedom is: Freedom FROM government. Yeah, we know, they said, we need some, but only enough to protect those inalienable rights. Left to Ds, we'd have government without end, without limitation.
As Benito put it, "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,."
Like insurrectionist, the word traitor has been devalued to the point that it reflects badly only on the person deploying it.
Arizona will only elect shitheads and weirdos as senator. His words are in bad faith as it is obvious that Russia in its entirety is a democrat propaganda act against Trump. The position the democrats take is always in the direction to damage Trump alone. There is no other thought involved.
Naval Aviators are a couple of steps up from mere pilots in aviation ability.
And Marine Corps Naval Aviators are a number of steps up from the brown shoe squids.
- Krumhorn
"Dave Begley said...
Surprised Kelly didn't bring his wife with him on this trip to get more publicity."
She wouldn't fit in the overhead compartment.
Mark Kelly is willing to fight Putin til the last drop of Ukraine blood.
That's one rusty tank. A neglected monument? I'm guessing Kelly could have traveled to Thailand and gained the same level of insight into the Ukraine's war.
Doug said...
"Not to ask a silly question, but why is it such a good idea to reward Russia (and Vladimir Putin) for invading Ukraine?"
>>>>>Explain how not involving ourselves in a European war lying outside NATO and to which we are not a party "rewards" one of the belligerents?
"That seems to be what President Trump is doing unless I am missing something profound."
>>>No, you are missing something elementary. We've tried being the world's policeman, and we failed.
Seriously… what sort of man has affairs while his wife, brain damaged by a crazed LW gunman, sits patiently at home?
Sickness in his soul.
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said, "That's one rusty tank. A neglected monument?"
That looks to me to be a 2S1 "Gvozdika" 122mm SPG. Probably a Russian battlefield capture on display for propaganda purposes. The Russians have been doing the same thing to captured US Abrams and German Leopards in Moscow.
Trump should tell Musk to stay in his lane.
We shouldn't make peace because that would make Putin feel good. And we don't like Putin. Cause he's such a meanie. Lets kill another 50,000 men spent another $100 Billion to make Putin sad.
Some amazing misconceptions (to put it kindly) in these comments. For instance:
1. Jupiter (11:30am): "Putin has already gained all the ground he wants". He has in fact pseudo-legally annexed four provinces (oblasts) he has been unable to capture completely, and is demanding that Ukraine hand over the parts of them his troops haven't been able to capture before he will even start negotations: that's about 1% of Luhansk, close to half of Donetsk, and a third or so each of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. And his propagandists are openly talking about grabbing lots more: Karkhiv, Odesa, maybe even Kyiv. Peace with Russia is in fact impossible, unless peace is defined as surrender.
2. FormerLawClerk (11:05am): "As a people, US citizens have never promised, nor has the American people ever approved or even had a chance to vote on, protecting that country militarily." The American people don't vote directly on matters of foreign policy. The fact is that Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum, and we as a nation are obligated to help Ukraine retain its 1991 borders in return for giving up its 1,700 nuclear weapons.
Not only is refusing to do so shameful, it's having devastating effects on the world. Many nations are now seriously thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons that hadn't planned to before. Ukrainians are openly talking about doing so, France is talking about giving nukes to Germany or Poland, and I'm sure Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others are making more discreet plans. Not providing Ukraine with enough weapons to defend themselves is short-sighted and stupid, and making the entire world a more dangerous place.
The US is also losing a trillion dollars or more in arms sales, far outweighing the cost of the arms given to Ukraine. There are reports that the US has disabled some electronic functions in Ukrainian F-16s that we didn't even provide (the Dutch did). Now countries like Germany are openly wondering if the F-35s they were planning to buy will have 'kill switches' that would allow a US president to make them useless. Sales of F-35s and other weapons are in freefall.
In MAGA-speak, “traitor” means patriotic citizen who doesn’t agree with Trump. I challenge anyone to find a MAGA usage where it didn’t mean that.
Doug, like all globalists, is willing spent thousands of other people's lives to make Putin feel bad. Somehow, i feel Doug would feel different if he - or one of his friends - was required to go die to make Putin sad.
Talking about punishing or rewarding Putin is a childish exercise. We have a foreign policy to protect the vital interests of the USA. We don't spend billions of dollars or ask our soldiers to die because we don't like this or that foreign leader.
The USA has no vital interest in where the Ukraine-Russia border is. Zero. Putin isn't our enemy. He's not a dictator, and Russia is not an 21st century Nazi Germany. The USA will not be safer if Ukraine joins NATO - quite the opposite, it put on the hook to start WW III if Russia invades. I'd prefer to get along with a country that has 10,000 nuclear warheads, instead of fighting them.
Did anybody stand with Ukraine during the 500 years that it was ruled by the czars and soviet's?
The simple fact is that Russia LOST this war, and lost it rather badly. They planned for a rapid and easy conquest of the entire country to create "strategic depth". But instead --
a) They failed in all their main objectives.
b) They demonstrated clearly that they are not a threat of any sort to Europe.
c) They lost their once considerable Black Sea fleet, and Syrian rebels chased their navy out of its only Mediterranean base.
d) They have lost power, influence, and most control in the southern Caucasus, formerly part of the USSR.
e) Previously neutral Finland and regional power Sweden joined NATO, because they knew their neutrality was decidedly post seasonal.
f) Russia demonstrated that its equipment was badly outdated, poorly maintained, and quite ill-suited to modern war. That includes its air force.
g) Russia's front-line troops were inadequately to horribly ill-trained, poorly equipped, and largely isolated from basic supplies by Russian logistical ineptitude.
h) The central asian "stans", all part of the former USSR, have seen Ukraine and decided to orient themselves somewhere other than Moscow.
i) At least 150,000 Russians are KIA in this war, and the first 50,000 were documented with accidentally-released "next-of-kin" compensation by the central bank in October '22, only 6 months in. It could be 300,000 KIA by now, simply from extrapolation.
j) Given Russia's demonstrated weakness, Chinese illegal immigrants are pouring into mineral-rich areas of eastern Russia (which used to be Chinese), are launching rebellions, and now demanding referenda on rejoining China, using Russia's precedent in eastern Ukraine.
k) The Russian economy is in a shambles, because it doesn't make anything the rest of the world wants ... except the Kalashnikova-47 rifle.
There is more, but this is already "piling on". The US had very little to do with any of this one way or the other.
The Cold War is indisputably OVER. Enter Trump. In his brash Queens way he is indeed trying to make lasting peace with Russia, ending the Cold War, and freeing the world to move on. Yes, Europe, you can and should see to your own defence from here on. The only threat you had is irreparably weak. Putin is 72. Protect your own land.
We in the US must henceforth focus on protecting freedom of the seas and of aerospace. We remain allies, but our roles are changing. We still need each other, but in ways much different than 25, 50, or 75 tears ago. Let's bring things into the mid-21st Century.
This is statesmanship, not sucking up, and the time is right.
Gassing about how Putin wants to CONQUER THE WORLD!! is proven false by the facts on the ground. Russia has the GDP of California. They aren't going to land on Miami beach and take over. What hysteria.
Once again Musk is deflecting public attention from Trump's actual actions. If he can keep up the gafla with Senator Kelly and others trying to insert themselves into the situation, something useful might actually be accomplished towards ending this Putin-run war.
Arizona will only elect shitheads and weirdos as senator.
Agreed. I miss Barry Goldwater. The parade of RINOs and left wing wackos since then is shameful to my state. Jon Kyl was the best of a bad bunch.
I thought Jeff Flake would turn out better than he did, but he was a great disappointment. Mormons are wonderful people, among them many of my distant relatives whom I love and admire, but as politicians their performative righteousness always makes the "perfect" into the enemy of the "pretty damn good".
Dr Weevil said, "The US is also losing a trillion dollars or more in arms sales, far outweighing the cost of the arms given to Ukraine. There are reports that the US has disabled some electronic functions in Ukrainian F-16s that we didn't even provide (the Dutch did). Now countries like Germany are openly wondering if the F-35s they were planning to buy will have 'kill switches' that would allow a US president to make them useless. Sales of F-35s and other weapons are in freefall."
Oh no. A long time ago I realized just how much of my taxes were going to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon so I decided to just start cutting them a check every two weeks. “Cut out the middle-man,” I said. Since then they’ve called me several times asking why I keep sending them free money. I always tell them, “Here’s one patriotic American that chooses to support the Military Industrial Complex directly. Keep the change toots.”
Yeah, that’s right. That’s how much I love my country, slackers. Everyone needs to get on my level or you're a traitor that doesn't love the USA.
Weevil, ref Budapest: Contract is void for lack of consideration. Ukraine gave up something it didn’t have. Those nukes were Soviet, controlled by the KGB, and operated by the Russian-speaking, all-Union-ethnic Strategic Rocket Forces. No ukrainian politician could have ever ordered those nukes to fire or cease firing. Had the Russians moved the nukes out without a treaty, what would the Ukes have done? Had the Russians chosen to keep their nuke bases in Ukraine, what would the Ukes have done? Ukraine had no bargaining power.
And there was lack of consideration on the other side, too. The big countries pledged not to use force on Ukraine, but with all sorts of loopholes, including self defense and other measures permitted by the UN Charter. This was written in the 90s, at the height of “right to protect” theory. Russia certainly believes it is protecting Russian-speaking Ukrainians in a situation similar to Hutu-Tutsi or Serbo-everyone-else conflicts.
Budapest was never worth the paper it was written on.
JSM
Apparently RideSpaceMountain doesn't understand that when American companies sell F-35s and other weapons to friendly countries like Germany and Japan, it doesn't add to his taxes, it means he can pay less in taxes, because the arms manufacturers are paying more in taxes on their overseas sales. Is he stupid?
"Russia certainly believes" no such thing, j.m. Putin has thrown away hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, and lives of Russian-Ukrainians, without hesitation. Also, try to keep straight the difference between Russian-speaking Ukrainians (like Zelenskyy), ethnic Russian Ukrainians who are loyal to Ukraine, and ethnic Russian Ukrainians who support Putin, a small minority.
@Bart Hall Nice piece of analysis. The world needs to rethink its view of Russia given its performance in Ukraine. If, as you say, the Chinese are encroaching on Russian territory in the east then Putin is going to need some friends on his western border. We have seen the Sino- Soviet alliance explode once I am sure it would not take much for it to happen again.
I am loathe to take advice about military matters from pilots who drop their bombs and go home for hot chow, showers and bunks to sleep in while the infantry lives in the dirt on cold canned food.
Giving money to Ukraine is not “defending freedom.”
I know it has been said by other commenters, but I want to emphasize that there is no f***ing way the US should put any American lives at risk for Ukraine or in Ukraine. Kelly, if you are so anxious for this war, volunteer to fight for Ukraine yourself. They are always looking for pilots, right? Put yourself and your own family on the line, not mine, you asshole.
Listening to Ursula von der Leyen's speech the other day, about the EU and NATO re-arming itself, I thought to myself, 'here we go - the Germans, getting militant again'. They dominated the EU from Day 1 and overseen the expansion of NATO, nation by nation, eastward, with not a single tank rolling. But they're getting ready to roll'em again, aren't they? F*ckin' Germans. Every Time.
Doing nothing in government can sometimes require an explanation, but not always.
By comparison, doing SOMETHING always requires an explanation as to why that specific action is the best thing to do.
The U.S. has directly, publicly provided direct military aid to Ukraine for 3 years to the tune of ~$120-180 billion. I don't believe this includes a valuation on the intel gathering/sharing nor thigns like elon musk's initial giveaway of Starlink that enabled Ukraine to survive the initial blitz by Russia.
We have done this, again publicly, not to "ensure Ukraine wins" but instead to help make it as costly as possible for Russia. In other words, to make Russia bleed. You can argue that may be worthwhile, though I would simply ask to what end and for how long.
Where I think it's gotten really hairy is when we've provided military equipment that was operated/approved/overseen by U.S. military personnel to strike directly into Russia. That to me isn't providing arms, it's directly enabling one side in a war. But here we are.
We do not have mutual defense stipulations with Ukraine. Our involvement is not by treaty or agreement, but by executive choice. If Congress wants to declare war with Russia, that is in it's power. And to the best of my knowledge, that is what Congress is advocating for when they demand we "support Ukraine" - direct confrontation with Russia to stop its military objectives and prevent Russian expansion.
Dr Weevil said, "Apparently RideSpaceMountain doesn't understand that when American companies sell F-35s and other weapons to friendly countries like Germany and Japan, it doesn't add to his taxes, it means he can pay less in taxes, because the arms manufacturers are paying more in taxes on their overseas sales. Is he stupid?"
Sure sure that's why the JSF was one of the longest, most expensive, and overbudget defense projects in American history before the first foreign partner ever received their initial batch. Let's talk about how much the US taxpayer has been saved by those MIC straightshooters involved in the DOD's KC-X program (https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/07/usaf-halts-deliveries-kc-46-cracks-discovery/) next. At least any future foreign partners should have all the kinks worked out at our expense before they receive any.
After we're done we can talk about the money-saving clusterfuck that is US shipbuilding. So many bargains.
"Ukraine can win this war."
- Mark Kelly in 2024.
He is working from a flawed premise.
And RideSpaceMountain replies like a goddamned squid, squirting irrelevancies and incoherencies all over the virtual page. If Germany and other nations cancel a trillion dollars worth of orders for F-35s and other weapons, will the US treasury receive more or less in tax dollars from the manufacturers than they would if the purchases had not been canceled? It's a simple question.
Making arguments about this or that being bad because it "hurts American defense contractors" is probably the absolute least effective way to get me or millions of others to care about anything. Those jackals fleece us for billions yearly. Keeping them in the comfort for which decades of administrations have kept them accustomed is my last priority, especially when so many of them have been politically and culturally instrumental in putting America last.
So can anyone answer the question 'why does the Eu and the UK so desperately want an open conflict with Russia, one where the US supplies all the blood and treasure, except for small tokens from the Eu and the UK'? What do they hope to gain and why cannot they see that poking the Bear might get the Bear to sue some of those 5500 warheads they have? A lot of which are pointed at Europe in general.
Trump is doing a good thing trying to get Ukraine and Russia to be serious about stopping the war that is doing nothing but killing the men and civilians of both belligerents.
If we don't stop - crush, in Biden's words - the Russia advance in Ukraine, dominos will fall one by one and Europe will be over run by Russia.
Now change Ukraine to Vietnam, and Russia to China/Communist, and Europe to Southeast Asia/the world, and you will see the same playbook being played. It's always the same.
Russia has no interest in Europe. They just want NATO off their front porch. Just look at Europe! They are transforming their selves into a totalitarian, anti Christian, socialist republic.
The squid squirts again! It seems obvious that a well-armed Germany and Japan and South Korea, for three, are good things in this world full of dangerous nations, and that if the US can arm them well and make money doing so, that's a good thing, too. And I specifically didn't say it was bad because it "hurts American defense contractors" but because it hurts the US treasury which will get less in the way of taxes from those contractors. That was my specific and stated point. But hey, squids gotta squid.
Maps of controlled Ukrainian territory now look very similar to that in Nov. 2022. Looks like a stalemate.Trump has united Europe like never before and aid to Ukraine from Europe, Canada, and Japan has increased. Is it written that the US must provide 50% of the aid? 25%?
Arashi:
It is simply false to say that the "US supplies all the blood and treasure". The US hasn't supplied any blood, and hasn't been asked to. The few Americans killed or wounded fighting for Ukraine - and at least one fighting for Russia - went on their own without any encouragement from the US government. As for treasure, the US has provided less than the Europeans have, for instance 31 tanks as compared to several hundred, and zero jets compared to 20+ F-16s and lately some Mirages (I don't know how many) from Europe.
Amazing how the globalists, zionists, and leftists all use the same rhetorical trick. Always trying to derail from the main point. talk about genocide in gaza and they derail to "Why don't you love the Jews?" talk about open borders and they derail to "Why do you hate immigrants?" . talk about Ukraine and its "What are you, some kinda putin lover".
The main point is quite simple: There is no Vital USA interest in where the Russian-Ukrainian border is. None. Nor is there a vital USA interest in hating Putin or liking Putin. getting along with Russia is a vital USA interest, because they have 10,000 nuclear warheads.
But y'know, people just want to argue and blather.
I'm a Cranky Old Yank Next to a Clanky Old Tank on the Streets of Kiev with my Gabby Mama Back Home Doin' Those Beat-o, Beat-o Flat-On-My-Seat-o, Put-on Blues
https://youtu.be/vyye06skfbE?si=ZqUR9mbs19_zfZpW&t=5
"If Putin gains ground he won’t agree to a ceasefire and will eventually threaten a NATO ally and this puts American troops and the American people at risk."
That is some wild speculation. If Putin had no qualms about threatening a member of NATO, then he would have threatened a member of NATO a long time ago.
On another site that I used to post at, two commenters would get into these long-winded exchanges with each other. It took a long time to figure out, it was one guy talking to his sock puppet. LOL!
Nobody who's a Demo is serious. Unless it's graft.
loudogblog:
Putin threatens NATO and NATO member countries all the time. Just Google (or DuckDuckGo, as I just did) "Putin threatens NATO" or "Putin threatens Poland" or any other member nation. Dozens of hits. Here are the top three results from the latter:
1. Reuters 2023: "Putin ally threatens 'enemy' Poland: you risk losing your statehood"
2. Newsweek 2024: "Putin ally threatens to 'destroy' Poland: 'We won't even think twice'"
3. Yahoo 2024: "Putin threatens to strike Poland, Warsaw responds"
It's not "some wild speculation", it's the simple truth that Putin already threatens NATO all the damned time.
Dr. Weasel said...If Germany and other nations cancel a trillion dollars worth of orders for F-35s and other weapons, will the US treasury receive more or less in tax dollars from the manufacturers than they would if the purchases had not been canceled?
Notice Dr. Weasel wipes out the fact that millions of people are killed at the end of these tax revenue generating weapons. To him that's perfectly ok as long as the Treasury gets its tax revenue, which he seems to think is some sort of virtuous charity.
Seems quite Machiavellian. How about we make money exporting energy that keeps people warm? Or food that feeds them?
The motivation to make money off war equipment leads to starting, financing, pushing, and extending stupid wars. We have watched it our entire lives. This is EXACTLY what Eisenhower warned America about. Beware of the military industrial complex. Dr. Weasel is in full support of it despite the moral bankruptcy.
RSM, to comment on your points:
1. What security concerns could Russia possibly have w/regard to Ukraine? Ukraine was never going to nuke, invade,or conquer Russia (even if it had joined NATO). Putin is doing this because he can, and wants Ukraine re-integrated into Russia.
2. So, Ukraine is just collateral damage because Trump doesn't the like the European approach to self defense?
3. If memory serves, when Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union didn't the US offer security guarantees to Ukraine?
4. True, the battlefield determines terms. However, Ukraine's only chance to "win", from day one of the invasion, was to inflict sufficient losses on Russia to convince them to quit. Given the disparity in size, another strategy wouldn't be practical. Rather like the North Vietnam's and theTaliban's strategies (both for the USSR and the US in the case of Afghanistan).
Dr. Weasel said (Part II)...If Germany and other nations cancel a trillion dollars worth of orders for F-35s and other weapons, will the US treasury receive more or less in tax dollars from the manufacturers than they would if the purchases had not been canceled?
But this isn't what is happening with Ukraine. The US borrows money from China or prints it, sends it to Ukraine... Ukraine buys weapons from US contractors after skimming some off the top, and the tax revenue is supposed to be a net positive even though the US Govt bought the weapons with borrowed money. That's just dumb.
I think I understand the position Trump is taking. That having been said, Musk should stay in his lane and *not* call Kelly a traitor. No matter how much I disagree with Kelly on a host of issues.
What is Mark Kelly and Dr. Weasels current proposal? Continue the status quo over the next four years? The US is $350 Billion in, and there are 1.5 million dead. Do we now go $700 Billion in and 3 million dead? Is that what will make these douchebags happy?
Could some pro-Ukrainian keep the war going supporter here explain 1) how does Ukraine "win" this war, and 2) what exactly do they win??
They are not getting back all their lost territory, and they can't raise their dead. But, I guess they can still send their poor young women to populate the brothels in Germany and The Netherlands.
At this very moment the SOS is in Saudi Arabia negotiating with the Ukrainians to try to get them to back down from their hardheaded and ultimately suicidal refusal to accept that they have lost the Eastern territories and they're not getting them back.
It is not a good time for a US Senator to be working against this diplomatic effort to stop the killing.
And here's Gutsy Winds (sounds like a euphemism for severe flatulence), still too stupid to understand the basic idea of tit-for-tat and address me by my chosen pseudonym so I'll address her by hers. Unteachable.
Her arguments are utterly flatulent, too. The point of selling F-35s to (e.g.) Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan is to save lives by deterring China from invading any or all of them. Deterrence works. And if deterrence fails, the point of selling them is to make sure that they win and China loses, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run and keep tens of millions out of slavery. The US would be making money while doing good things for the world, not making money from the miseries of others.
Her second message is also utterly false, so obviously so it's not worth addressing.
“Arizona will only elect shitheads and weirdos as senator. His words are in bad faith as it is obvious that Russia in its entirety is a democrat propaganda act against Trump. The position the democrats take is always in the direction to damage Trump alone. There is no other thought involved.”
Keep in mind that Kelly wasn’t popularly elected. He was elected by Katy Hobbs and her crew of ballot harvesters and election riggers, with his fraudulent vote total far below the margin of fraud. There are frequent allegations that (now Gov) Hobbs and her AG and SecState are owned and controlled by the cartels across the AZ border in MX. The election that brought them to power was just as corrupt, if maybe more so, than the one that bought Kelly his seat. My hope is that with the Republicans apparently having learned how to keep the voter fraud under control, as evidenced by the last election, and the cartels on the run, we can oust all four in the election next year, and hopefully imprison Hobbs and her two henchpeople.
Doug said,
"1. What security concerns could Russia possibly have w/regard to Ukraine? Ukraine was never going to nuke, invade,or conquer Russia (even if it had joined NATO). Putin is doing this because he can, and wants Ukraine re-integrated into Russia."
The fact that a NATO weapon launched from Ulytsya could reach Moscow in 5 minutes.
"2. So, Ukraine is just collateral damage because Trump doesn't the like the European approach to self defense?"
Ukraine isn't collateral anything when they were dropping DPICM BM-22 cluster-grads on DPR cities for the 7 years prior to the current conflict. Ukraine helped make this bed, poorly made, and they will be made to sleep in it.
"3. If memory serves, when Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union didn't the US offer security guarantees to Ukraine?"
Ukraine inherited nothing. Those were Russian weapons on foreign soil. The security "guarantees" you're referring to were defacto negated by NATO's flubbing of the Minsk Accords and the non-renewal of the INF treaty by the USA.
"4. True, the battlefield determines terms. However, Ukraine's only chance to "win", from day one of the invasion, was to inflict sufficient losses on Russia to convince them to quit. Given the disparity in size, another strategy wouldn't be practical. Rather like the North Vietnam's and theTaliban's strategies (both for the USSR and the US in the case of Afghanistan)."
Ukraine's only chance to win was not provoking a grizzly bear on its front door by anticipating help from so far away and from feckless Europeans effeminates West of Poland. Ukraine is not blameless, despite the overwhelming propaganda to the contrary.
I am loathe to take advice about military matters from pilots who drop their bombs and go home for hot chow, showers and bunks to sleep in while the infantry lives in the dirt on cold canned food.
....until the pilot hears the X-band lock tone of a SAM, and then the pilot would happily trade for the dirt and rations....and some clean boxers.
- Krumhorn
RideSpaceMountain (2:38pm) rehashes a stupid argument I've refuted at least three times when Jaq tried it. He thinks NATO wants Ukraine because "a NATO weapon launched from Ulytsya could reach Moscow in 5 minutes". Has he looked at a map? If that's a 5 minute flight, the flight-time of a weapon launched from eastern Latvia, already a NATO member, is less than 6 minutes! And the flight time from Estonia to St. Petersburg, Putin's home-town, is about 1 minute.
If NATO were planning a first strike, they wouldn't need Ukraine to do it. NATO, of course, is not planning a first strike, has not placed any nuclear weapons in Latvia or Estonia, and would have no reason to place any in Ukraine.
His other points are equally idiotic, especially the claim that Ukraine's nukes were really Russian. They were Soviet. And a very high proportion of Soviet weapons were in fact manufactured in Ukraine, including, I believe, at least some of the nuclear ones. Ukraine had as much right to them as Russia did.
"He thinks NATO wants Ukraine"
For the last time Russia doesn't want Ukraine. It wants to minimize the threat from as many different directions and angles as we do. As everyone does. If you have a 360° pie from which threats can originate, you're going to want to reduce the total number of degrees and the disparity of the degrees from which they can arrive. It is an economy of force and detection measure, and is critical for updating the Russian automated nuclear defense system, Perimeter.
"especially the claim that Ukraine's nukes were really Russian. They were Soviet. And a very high proportion of Soviet weapons were in fact manufactured in Ukraine, including, I believe, at least some of the nuclear ones. Ukraine had as much right to them as Russia did."
Last time I checked a PAL-equipped warhead is owned by the person/s with the appropriate codes, Ukraine not being those persons. Moscow had, has, and will have always maintained control of those weapons, and saying Ukraine has "a right" to them means absolutely nothing when possessive functionality is ten-tenths of the law with nukes.
Mark Kelly wants to be President. Should that happen the US will be the first "first world" country that has E.S. Blofeld as its leader. I can hardly wait to see the Presidential portrait!
Russia wants to "minimize the threat"? What threat? Other than the very serious threat that China will try to retake Vladivostok and the vast adjacent territories that Russia took from them in the 19th century, there is no threat. No one else wants any part of Russia. Even Finland doesn't seem to want Karelia back, though they certainly have a historical claim to it. Of course, Georgia and Ukraine and Moldova want some territory from Russia, but in every case it's their own territory the Russians are occupying. This whole "poor Russia, everyone wants to invade them" thing is idiotic, and only a Russian could seriously believe it.
As for Ukraine's nukes, if they couldn't break the codes, or bribe some Russian to hand them over, they could surely have dismantled them and used the uranium to build new weapons. And they also gave up a bunch of 4-engine long-range bombers at the time: exactly the same models Russia is using to bomb their cities every night of the week. They certainly should have kept those.
Read the BBC coverage (ps they hate Trump).
Perhaps he isn't as stupid as some people think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c51ypekv9xwt
Maybe it's been asked, but why was Mark Kelly in Ukraine in the first place? Isn't Congress in session?
Dr. Weevil, Russia believes NATO expansion is their primary threat and has been repetitive to the point of exhaustion on this issue. We may not believe, but they do believe NATO encroachment on those regions representing historically "core territory" of Russia is a serious security threat in the same way we regarded Soviet IRBMs on Cuba to be unbearable for ourselves. I'm not sure anybody believes anyone wants to invade Russia per se (I don't think Russians believe that either), but encroachment, encirclement, and reduced access to warmer-water ports are all economic and strategic threats that would concern us as much as it would concern them if the tables were turned.
Regarding the weapons, what you suggest would have been incredibly difficult if not impossible even without them being 'bricked' by activation of a PAL lockout. PAL lockouts on US weapons effectively render them and many of their components completely inoperable such that they require total rebuilding at US Q-level CNWDI sites like Pantex, and a lot of US PAL technology was actually shared with the Soviets. In other words, not happening.
For the last time, I'm no Russian fanboy but the Ukraine proxy-war was folly since before its start, and it needs to end. Ukraine had a chance to end it more favorably than it does now but that is over, and it's proven that it can't without a massive military commitment from NATO and the USA that is baldfacedly insane and will result in escalation unacceptable to everyone, including - I would assume - yourself.
Not to ask a silly question, but why is it such a good idea to reward Russia (and Vladimir Putin) for invading Ukraine?
I don't know. Why don't we ask the last guy? You know, the one who gave permission to let it happen?
Do you really not know that when Russia invaded in 2014, Ukraine had a law on the books that they would not join NATO, that there was little interest in changing the law, everyone just wanted to join the EU? The fact is that the Russian invasion was the cause of Ukraine wanting to join NATO, not the result of it, just as it was the cause of Sweden and Finland changing their minds after decades of neutrality and joining NATO.
Your statement starting "Russia believes" is simply false. They believe no such thing. They allege it as propaganda believed only by fools. Russia is not the slightest bit afraid of NATO expansion. They have virtually no troops on the Finnish border, having sent them all to Ukraine. They only fear a prosperous democratic Ukraine because it proves that Slavs are capable of living that way, which makes them look like the shits they are.
Of course, anyone who calls it a "proxy-war" is acting like a Russian fanboy. The rest of your last paragraph is bullshit, too.
Trump should tell Musk to stay in his lane.
Yes. And somebody should tell Kelly to do the same.
Poland, called "little European Texas" by a fun poster on YouTube, seems to have the best military in Europe at the moment, barring the French (whose nukes and De Gaulle aircraft carrier have potency). They seem to think that the best way to keep Russia on their side of a border is by force of arms. Ukraine failed in that realization. Now Russia has more Black Sea coastlines for naval ports and shipping, and the potential to return to having a Med naval port in Syria, perhaps. So Finland is probably pretty safe for the near term future. This game of Risk is interesting, but I'd rather play Hungry, Hungry, Hippos myself.
And for those wondering, Great Britain with its nukes and navy, is not in Europe any more. It is a satrapy of the Muslim imperium.
Krumhorn,
I was well acquainted with a ... Flyer ... who flew for USMC, USN, USAF, and NASA. How shall we label this person?
Dr Weevil, the Budapest Memorandum was not and is not a treaty. "America" never signed up.
I am interested in the “Ukrainian nukes” question and asked grok.
“Let’s break this down based on the historical context and available information.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, making it temporarily the third-largest nuclear power in the world. This arsenal included approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads, comprising 130 UR-100N (SS-19) intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets (SS-24) ICBMs with ten warheads each, and 33 heavy bombers with associated nuclear weapons. These weapons were stationed on Ukrainian soil, primarily under the control of the Soviet 43rd Rocket Army.
Were the weapons made in Ukraine?
Not entirely, but Ukraine played a significant role in their production. The Soviet nuclear weapons program was a centralized effort, with design, development, and production distributed across various republics. Ukraine was a key industrial hub for the Soviet military-industrial complex. Notably, the Yuzhmash (Pivdenmash) factory in Dnipropetrovsk (now Dnipro) and the associated Yuzhnoye Design Bureau were responsible for designing and manufacturing several types of Soviet ICBMs, including the UR-100N and RT-23 missiles that ended up on Ukrainian territory. While the nuclear warheads themselves were likely assembled elsewhere (most warhead production occurred in closed cities in Russia, such as Arzamas-16, now Sarov), the delivery systems—missiles and some bomber components—were indeed produced in Ukraine. So, while the weapons as complete systems (warheads plus delivery vehicles) weren’t wholly "made in Ukraine," critical elements of them were.
Was the Ukrainian government able to use them?
No, the Ukrainian government was not able to use these weapons operationally. Although the physical weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, operational control remained with Moscow. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was designed as a tightly integrated system, with command and control centralized in Russia. Ukraine had physical possession of the weapons but lacked the infrastructure, technical expertise, and—crucially—the command-and-control systems needed to deploy them independently. The warheads and missiles were under the authority of Soviet (and later Russian) military personnel stationed in Ukraine, and Ukraine did not inherit the broader nuclear command structure when the USSR collapsed.
I guess Ukraine could have cut them open and taken the plutonium pit from the primary, but would not have had tritium and such for the hydrogen explosive part. Whether they could have done anything with it who knows. It would have cost a fortune they did not have. Ukraine was not a nuclear explosive producer, that was done in the secret Soviet cities built for that purpose.
Did they have the code words for the permissive action links (PALs)?
No, Ukraine did not have the codes for the permissive action links (PALs). Permissive action links are security devices designed to prevent unauthorized arming or detonation of nuclear weapons, requiring specific codes or authorization to activate. In the Soviet system, these mechanisms (sometimes referred to as "command disablement systems" rather than Western-style PALs) were controlled by the central military command in Moscow. After the Soviet Union’s dissolution, Russia retained exclusive control over the electronic codes and command systems necessary to arm and launch the weapons. While Ukraine had physical custody of the missiles and warheads, it lacked the "keys" to unlock them. Any attempt to bypass or reengineer these systems would have required significant time, expertise, and resources—none of which Ukraine possessed in the chaotic early 1990s, especially given its economic struggles and lack of a domestic nuclear weapons program.
Additional Context
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish these weapons under the Budapest Memorandum, transferring them to Russia for dismantlement in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The process was completed by 2001, with all nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems removed or decommissioned. Some Ukrainian leaders and analysts later expressed regret over this decision, particularly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war since 2022, but at the time, maintaining an operational nuclear arsenal was not feasible. Ukraine lacked the financial means to sustain the weapons (warheads require regular maintenance to remain viable), and attempting to gain operational control could have provoked a severe reaction from Russia or alienated Western support.”
The Budapest Memorandum "security guarantees" in case of a violation, were actually nothing more than agreement to "consult". Diplomacy, gotta love it.
Considering Dems have called him a NAZI, there's really no reason to upbraid him for objecting to putting Ukraine's needs above what's good for the US.
The fact is that Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum, and we as a nation are obligated to help Ukraine retain its 1991 borders in return for giving up its 1,700 nuclear weapons.
************
Is the Budapest Memorandum a Treaty, ratified by 2/3's the Senate? It's not, therefore we're not "obligated" as a country to do anything.
RideSpaceMountain said:
"“Here’s one patriotic American that chooses to support the Military Industrial Complex directly. Keep the change toots.”"
*****************
You've left out whether they cashed your checks. Did they?
If not you're just grandstanding.
And for how much were they made out for?
Did I write that we are legally and constitutionally obligated? No. But we are morally obligated, and Ukrainians feel betrayed. Can you blame them?
"1. What security concerns could Russia possibly have w/regard to Ukraine? Ukraine was never going to nuke, invade,or conquer Russia (even if it had joined NATO). Putin is doing this because he can, and wants Ukraine re-integrated into Russia."
CIA run training camps on the Russian border, US Funded Bioweapon labs, entry into NATO allowing NATO to put weapons on Russia's doorstep.
If you think there are no legitimate security concerns you are not an honest dealer.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.