Should’ve adhered to the Budapest Memorandum and stayed the fuck out of Ukraine then.
So it’s NATO membership then. Congratulations to Ukraine!
The title and teaser really don’t make the article justice.
The title and teaser is promoting Putins propaganda.
The article later does give context both to what Zelensky said and the history of Ukraine denuclearization and failed security guarantees.
I still hate the whole layout. First and foremost, it fearmongers or baits.
I would have liked a title that summarizes the article, or puts Putins claims into context. Not publishing Russian propaganda.
I get what you mean but I used this piece specifically because western media started to downplay Zalensky’s threat of developing nuclear arms as misunderstanding. Putin seem to think it is credible. And I hope it is.
@Misk@sopuly.xyz what’s up with El Pais, or has it always been like this?
They’re definitely pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine due to basic human decency, just more nuanced and less concerned with appearance because they report from Hispanic / Latino perspective and naturally they’re a bit more detached due to distance.
Tnx. So "less worried about appearance ", is being the main difference you reckon?
I checked them out, apart of being pro PS some years ago, they came out very trustworthy and factual.
Yet somehow the paper “reads” completely different to other western media outlets,. It could be what you said.
Being less worried about appearance in regards to war in Ukraine stems from aspiring to be the voice of global south, at least in my perception. They tend to underscore humanitarian cost and threat of escalation because they don’t have as much historical context as Eastern Europe does, but that doesn’t mean they don’t recognise that the blame is solely on Russia. To them invasion of Ukraine is about as distant as civil war in Myanmar is for someone in Ukraine.
El Pais reminds me of weekly news/political magazines from the time when those were still printed on paper. Their reporting covers majors news, politics but also popular science and culture. What’s nice about them is that they’re don’t publish a story unless it’s reasonably fleshed out. Even though it’s obviously left leaning it doesn’t go overtly partisan like The Guardian.
Putin saying something doesn’t tell you anything about what he believes.
He took the opportunity to paint Ukraine in a dangerous light, and put out a threat of escalation as well, while also painting Russia in a powerful and rightful way.
although Zelenskiy later clarified that neither a nuclear program “nor anything like that” is part of his plans
They’re repeating Russian talking points to a non-thing.
I wouldn’t take any of those things at face value. Even a veiled threat that was later downplayed could have been made just so that the other side starts considering it more seriously.
has anyone told him they dont need his permission? i feel like thats an important point.
Has anyone mentioned, just in passing, that if Putin withdrew there would be no motivation for the Ukrainians to even continue fighting. Well, except for revenge.
Remember when Russia signed that contract to not attack it’s ex colonies if they give up their nukes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
According to the three memoranda,[6] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7]
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[8][9][10]
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[11][12]
Too bad Putin has nothing to say about that unless he pulls his troops out of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
And even then.
Mr Putin current has a say on whether this own country has nukes. Through his veto power in the UNSC he can meddle to some extent in other countries.
I think this is one case where he really needs to understand how uninvolved and powerless he is.
Can’t he do something positive in his remaining years?
The whole world demonstrated it clearly. If it’s not in a big alliance, it needs nukes or the world will fuck the country over.
Nice precedent set there by pacivity, or outright aggression. Good job nuclear powers, real nice (/s).
If the west wants to prevent nuclear proliferation they have to defend a county that gave up nukes willingly for the promise of defense. Shortsightedness of the western powers will lead to more countries learning from Ukraine’s mistake and hurt us worse than whining of a despot could ever do. It’s not like that big alliance doesn’t have nukes either.
I feel like the West is just doing the bare minimum to support Ukraine. Enough to be able to say “look we did something” but not too much, because maybe some voters won’t understand the benefits of spending their taxes on Ukraine.
they have to defend a county that gave up nukes willingly for the promise of defense
I agree with you,
but the problem here lies with the fact that the promise was made by the same fucking country doing the invasion (Russia).So no promise was made by the West or NATO in any way to Ukraine. Get your facts straight.Uhh, maybe you should get those facts straight?
Other nuclear powers - US, UK, France and China are signatories too.
“Big alliance” part is also untested. Who knows what would happen if Putin got Ukraine fast and moved onto the Baltics.
It worked so far though.
What are they going to do, invade Ukraine ?
It’ll be a quick thing, 3 days max in and out
The “out” part was never part of the plan.
They could beat Ukraine with just a military training exercise I bet
They’re going to respond in kind and develop nuclear weapons.
So it’s NATO membership then.
The West should then not allow Russia to have nuclear weapons “under any circumstances”. Fair is fair.
America too, since they’re the only ones who have mass murdered with it
Ideally no country would have nuclear weapons, but I don’t think Russia’s call for denuclearisation should be taken with any seriousness whatsoever unless they get rid of their own nukes.
Blyat showed his hand the moment he invaded a non-nuclear state. Ukraine would be fucking dumb af not to develop nukes.
It’s funny though, the only countries that don’t get invaded now are the ones with nuclear weapons. 🤷♂️
Could the circumstances be honoring the agreement you made in 2014 on this exact fucking topic?
This little russian fuckwit is growing senile.
Bark bark bark
if he hasn’t been able to take ukraine in however many years and is having to borrow half ass troops from NK, then wtf is he actually going to do about it? he’s arrogant for sure, but not dumb enough to use nukes himself
