Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[Dalit]

View attachment 818533

What is he holding? Yellowcake? Let me guess. Freshly produced from Saddam's palace?

 

[Hack-Hook]

Russia made a WRITTEN promise not to attack Ukraine. It does not have legal bindings, but from 1994 to now, the current Ukrainian government inherited that promise and when you compare the security from nuclear weapons to a document that have no legal authority, what Ukraine did was shocking. Nuclear weapons security is an assurance that no one want to put to test.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).​

​

Imagine the enormity of what Ukraine did. They gave up 1,700 nuclear warheads -- PERMANENTLY -- just because Russia made a NON-LEGAL promise not to attack. Do you really think they care TODAY about who promised yrs ago that NATO would not expand east in a non-legal notebook?

Would your Pakistan willing to give up just 10, not 1700, nuclear warheads if India make a non-legal promise not to attack?

and USA promised not to sanction Belarus on the same paper , what happened to it.
by the way Ukraine started by shelling Luhansk and Donetsk

 

[RescueRanger]

Reuters: Unconfirmed reports that the dome covering the Chernobyl reactor was damaged during shelling by Russia. This has been claimed by the Ukrainian government, it has not been independently verified. - TRT News Live.

 

[Trench Broom]

+ France. NATO at this point is US, UK, France and Turkey. The rest are laughable.

It is the truth. So much muscle flexing. So much noise. In the end, Ukraine is all alone and abandoned. Just like the Kurds. Just like the Afghans. Just like the Iraqis. Anyone who chooses US side always stands alone. It is an eye opener.

America is proving to be the worst 'friend' ever. Give up your nukes, they said. We'll protect you, they said.

I wonder when all this is done if there is some legal way Ukraine can punish the countries that guaranteed its safety and then reneged?

 

[Hack-Hook]

Why is it funny? Ukraine is not NATO member. And have you not been following that it was Russia who made a WRITTEN promise back in 1994 not to attack Ukraine?

the same paper that you officially stated is nonbinding and violated one year earlier

 

[Dalit]

America is proving to be the worst 'friend' ever. Give up your nukes, they said. We'll protect you, they said.

I wonder when all this is done if there is some legal way Ukraine can punish the countries that guaranteed its safety and then reneged?

I am glad India is US partner.

 

[Paul2]

This is how I see it personally: US >> UK ~ France > Turkey

I would put it US > Turkey > France > UK

Depending on how real is American promise on their nukes in storage in Turkey, which is a big question

 

[QWECXZ]

America is proving to be the worst 'friend' ever. Give up your nukes, they said. We'll protect you, they said.

I wonder when all this is done if there is some legal way Ukraine can punish the countries that guaranteed its safety and then reneged?

There is no justice for countries that want to punish permanent UNSC members.

The whole system has been set up to ensure the interests of world powers only. If you open a case against a UNSC permanent member, even if you win the case at the UN's International Court of Justice, the country can refuse to accept the verdict and there's nothing you can do. Normally when a country refuses to accept the verdict of the International Court of Justice, the case will be referred to the UNSC council to take a decision. The decision can be as light as just a condemnation, or sanctions, or even a military coalition by UN members. However, because permanent members of the UNSC can veto any resolution at the UNSC, there's basically no way that you can do a damn thing about their refusal.

 

[khail007]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496991566816329732

F-35 over Poland

Equipment/System on display doesn't fight or hit back.
Let it enjoy there the pollution-free and cool air - good for health.

 

[QWECXZ]

I would put it US > Turkey > France > UK

Depending on how real is American promise on their nukes in storage in Turkey, which is a big question

Dude, Turkey doesn't have nukes. Holding NATO's nukes in your land doesn't mean that you have them. And Turkey definitely has no nuclear triad. And it will never become a permanent member of the UNSC either, not in our life times. So, your comparison makes absolutely no sense. Sorry.

 

[Hack-Hook]

BRAINDEADWOOD

IM ROFLing at work and everyone is

View attachment 818529

So we are haradrims , from where you get it?

 

[Daniel808]

Zelensky fleeing?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497166426737569794

 

[Man of steel23]

Throwing Ukraine under the bus is different from not being capable to defend one's self. France is one of the permanent members of the UNSC armed with nuclear triad and pretty decent military equipment with a long established military industry and one of the world's leading aerospace industries. France is also one of the leading countries in nuclear enrichment and reprocessing. Macron has been talking about expanding French military for several years, ever since Trump talked about US abandoning NATO, and unlike Germany, they do plan to ramp up their nuclear industry.

This is how I see it personally: US >> UK ~ France > Turkey

France may have Nuclear weapons but that doesn't make them solid but it is disfunctional and on top of that it has vastly unpatrioting civilians as the ethnic french themselves are extremely unpatrioting and unwilling to take any risks in life example remember that 9 days surrender in despite having a top army in ww2 that says alot about France it is a sitting duck a couple of nuclear strikes and France surrenders without conditions.

Whereas in WW1 it took an unprecedented 10-15m armed men to push Turkey back into it's current boundaries from Arabia, Europe and other parts it occupied they fought like a honey badger and even that large coalition took to much casualites once they reached inside Turkey as the casualities on both sides raeched above 5m slayed in unprecedented scale you had Greeks, French, British, Australians, American volunteers, Arabs, Kurds, Georgians, Russians and East Europeans against the Turks. They stragetically lost WW1 but they couldn't be destroyed completely leading to the coalition settling for negotiation when they have pushed the turks passed Ismir... What makes Turkey a mountain to climb is the resolve.

The British have resolve and so do the Americans but not the french..

US-> Uk -> Turkey

 

[_Nabil_]

 

[Enigma SIG]

So we are haradrims , from where you get it?

lol twitter gold