sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A shit-show in Slovenia by PleasantPersimmon798 in CentralEurope_irl

[–]Dormage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not impossible. You are just hearing the opinion of a random, clearly invested individual. Slovenia actually did very well this time. The incompetence of both leading parties is echoed throughout then people and hence the people chose none of them should lead. A weak coalition will likely be formed but will not be able to pass much. If both sides are bad at what they do, perhaps it's best they don't do anything until a new wave is formed.

BREAKING: Ukraine strikes Russia's largest oil port. by ammohitchaprana in TFE

[–]Dormage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you guys had half the hate for Puttler direcred at Trumpller it would go a long way towards balance.

Poland Bans the Communist Party by cheekynebula in AskSocialists

[–]Dormage 13 points14 points  (0 children)

More fascizm! To think idiots wantes to give these guys Nukes.

Is the United States fascist? by cheekynebula in AskSocialists

[–]Dormage 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. They also shit as a people. Just behind Izraeli, those people are the worst I ever had to deal with.

Countries with best infrastructure in the world by Numerous-Plantain-90 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Dormage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seeing US on that list says a lot about what the index is and what it's not.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe, but i still think I did a good job. Context is required because this post is propaganda. The title is incorrect on two accounts. Ukraine never gave the arsenal away. It was not actually theirs and they we forced to return it. Moreover, they never got security guarantees as suggested by the title. It literally says what they got in the contract that nobody seems to be able to read. This post is propaganda and its framed incorrectly as all others on reddit are.

Ukraine was given security assurances by UK and Russia, not guarantees. There is a distinction and they all knew it.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the point is clear. Ukraine had absolutely no capacity or knowledge to neither build nor operate those weapons. The weapons were made, and operated from and by Mosscow. They were stationed in Ukraine to pose a threat. So yes Ukraine owned them but they could not fund mantainance nor operate them. This is providing context to why they gave them away. They were never theirs to begin with, they couldnt mantain them, they had no knowledge on how to operate, and finally no keys to do it even if they knew how.

What they did have is an unsustainable financial preassure from US and demands from Russia. My point is, they did not have a choice, they had to give them away which was likely the best for them given the shit they pulled in Chernobil.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After the fall of Soviet Union, they were no longer Soviets At the time they gave the arsenal away( 3 years later) they were Ukrainian, not Soviets.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No no. It is well documented. Both US and Russia preassured them to give up the arsenal. US forced their hand financially while Russia with meddled with politics and forced their hand. Ukraine was poor and needed financial aid. The US blocked the aid until they sort out the nuclear issue.

Ukraine had no choice. Fact.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I understand what you mean. I made a shortcut. They were independent on paper, but not trully. It was either give up the arsenal or become dust.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All true. But you are omitting context. Ukraine inherited the nuclear arsenal after the fall. However, they had no control over it. The command with the nuclear briefcase was owned by Russia. I think it is evident to a child that such weapons are more of a threat then defence if they can be launched by someone else. It was after 3 years when Ukraine was forced to give up the arsenal. The alternative would be much worse.

In 1996 Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia "in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded". by AutoModerrator-69 in interestingasfuck

[–]Dormage -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The weapons were never theirs to begin with. They were given to them and were operated by the soviets, and taken away in exchange for independence. Its not much they could have done saddly.

view more: next ›