Poroshenko claims Ukraine is now being offered weapons by NATO.

[sleepycat]

Putin's position is very strong. He doesn't look (his actions) like imbecile at all.

Like signing a deal to supply gas to the Chinese at a loss-making price?

[fathertime]

Actually Ukraine is ramping up their nuclear program with the help of the US. People would survive a limited exchange if it occurred. Most people do not realize the Pentagon (through the DTRA) also has about 10 facilities in Ukraine where they produce weaponized biological agents. All facilities are right on the Russian border. There is one in Georgia and Kazakhstan (Central Reference Laboratory) as well.

Hey Alex, I'm clear people would survive although the effects would be felt by all.

If Ukraine begins developing nuclear weapons of their own,  then Russia might decide to bomb the facilities just like we are threatening Iran with.  Overall I'd like to see the infiltration of nuclear weapons stop BUT with the USA and now Russia using their respective military strengths to influence world events/peoples,  the desire/incentive of nations to be nuclear armed is greater than ever.

I am having a hard time believing that we (the USA) would help another nation in Ukraine's position develop these weapons.  Helping with nuclear power I can see doing
Fathertime!

[Isthmus]

Like signing a deal to supply gas to the Chinese at a loss-making price?

Or with the 'Do as Moskva says or we will attack you and dismember your country' approach, opening the door wide open to China having a real influence and presence in former Soviet Central Asia (where they have a toehold already).

[Gator]

Everyone here knows it down deep just how rotten to the core these people are, but can't for obvious reasons bring yourselves to say it or even think it.

Do you mean Russian people in general or do you mean the leaders of Russia's government and economy?  If the former, I take strong exception.  If the latter, I agree. 

[Doll]

Like signing a deal to supply gas to the Chinese at a loss-making price?

Yes, because it is better than giving it to Ukraine for free.

[southernX]

Hey Alex, I'm clear people would survive although the effects would be felt by all.

If Ukraine begins developing nuclear weapons of their own,  then Russia might decide to bomb the facilities just like we are threatening Iran with.  Overall I'd like to see the infiltration of nuclear weapons stop BUT with the USA and now Russia using their respective military strengths to influence world events/peoples,  the desire/incentive of nations to be nuclear armed is greater than ever.

I am having a hard time believing that we (the USA) would help another nation in Ukraine's position develop these weapons.  Helping with nuclear power I can see doing
Fathertime!

FT why is it ok for you to have them to protect your backside but not ukraine ??

the US signed the budapest memorandum , you havent honoured it, so why not expect other countrys to try to use  any & all means to protect themselves ??
it is clear they can only rely on themselves, ,
everyone knows putin would not be in ukraine if they still had nuclear weapons ,

SX

[sleepycat]

From China's POV, this is all great news as Russia will now be forced to seek an alliance with China, and Russia will have to be the junior partner of that alliance. I wonder how the Kremlin really feels about having to play 'little brother' to an Asian nation.

[southernX]

Yes, because it is better than giving it to Ukraine for free.

doll , gazprom has been charging extorniate prices for gas to all of the EU  & UKRAINE for way too long
they levy a price for their gas depending on the  volume and how weak/gas dependant  they percieve the buyer country  to be , not on fair charges for the product that foster good open business relationships ,
gasprom is  corrupt and manipulative , everyone knows this

SX

[fathertime]

FT why is it ok for you to have them to protect your backside but not ukraine ??

the US signed the budapest memorandum , you havent honoured it, so why not expect other countrys to try to use  any & all means to protect themselves ??
it is clear they can only rely on themselves, ,
everyone knows putin would not be in ukraine if they still had nuclear weapons ,

SX

I didn't write that Ukraine can't have nukes. I just wouldn't help them develop them.  Why can't Syria or Libya have them too? That would cover their ass from the USA intervening on their sovereignty.

Fathertime!

[fathertime]

doll , gazprom has been charging extorniate prices for gas to all of the EU  & UKRAINE for way too long
they levy a price for their gas depending on the  volume and how weak/gas dependant  they percieve the buyer country  to be , not on fair charges for the product that foster good open business relationships ,
gasprom is  corrupt and manipulative , everyone knows this

SX

Who are you to dictate what a fair price for gas is?  Russia is free to charge what the market will bear.  The west doesn't sit on the resource yet appartently still thinks they should dictate a 'fair' price. 

Fathertime!

[Isthmus]

everyone knows putin would not be in ukraine if they still had nuclear weapons ,

Spot on.

I would guess that Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan is also now regretting relinquishing nuclear armaments. They may not have the same technological and scientific depth as UA but KZ does have oil, gas, gold, uranium etc ... and could conceivably fund such a program.

[Bee Farmer]

Do you believe Putin to be a strategic imbecile?  Because I do.  How about you?

Putin is an INTJ personality.  INTJ's are Master Strategists.  No other personality type comes close to the strategic abilities of an INTJ.  Regardless what you think of Putin, it is extremely foolish and ignorant to think Putin to be a strategic imbecile.

Ukraine actually already possesses all the ingredients for a nuclear weapons program. Who can say to them that they have no need for it or "don't develop a nuclear weapons capability, we will guarantee your future security".

Have you forgotten the Budapest Moratorium?  The US and Russian promised to protect Ukraine if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapon arsenal.  Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world at the time.

The US and Russia reneged on their end of the agreement.  I believe Ukraine has a legitimate right to get its nukes back.

Personally, I think the easiest way to calm the situation in Ukraine down is for Obama to go public with the secret agreement the US made with Ukraine at the Budapest Moratorium.  Obama should say that Ukraine transferred 10 nuclear weapons to US custody, and the US agreed to return those nuclear weapons to Ukraine if Russia reneged on their security promises under the Budapest Moratorium. 

If Obama publicly said that the US would return those 10 nuclear weapons to Ukraine if Russia didn't immediately withdraw from Crimea and the Donbass, I think we would instantly see Putin think twice.  Because there is no way Putin wants to see those "fascist Nazis in Kiev" get their hands on nukes.  Even if he thinks he could take Kiev in 2 weeks, Putin knows Kiev would be able to strike Russia hard with the nukes in that 2 weeks.

It doesn't matter if there was ever a secret agreement or not.  Documents could be forged.  But it would give a public, legitimate reason for the US to put 10 nukes in Kiev's hands.

Then again, I think it would be a good idea for the US to loan Kiev all or some of  our A-10 Warthogs.  The Warthog is a beast of a plane that is incredible at destroying tanks and ground armor.  It is probably the best plane in the world at providing close ground support.  The military is doing away with the Warthogs, because of its cost and because our idiot military leaders don't see the need for tank busting planes in future combats.  If we are going to do away with the Warthog program, why don't we loan the planes to Ukraine (who really needs them to counter Russian armor) and if we ever decide we want to bring the Warthog program back, we can easily recall the planes.

[southernX]

I didn't write that Ukraine can't have nukes. I just wouldn't help them develop them.  Why can't Syria or Libya have them too? That would cover their ass from the USA intervening on their sovereignty.

Fathertime!

FT, show me where i said syria or libya should have them please ?but given the weak response from western powers, why would you not expect them to desire to ?

you dont want the US to help ukraine militarily, , you dont want the US to keep its agreements internationly, but you also dont want ukraine to have nuclear, all the while you sit completly protected ,

hypocrisy
help defend them or let them develop weapons that can ,

your attitude is selfish hypocrisy when your own self is protected

given the US /EU NATO , ETC lack of military help , why would you now expect any country from here on in to look to protect themselves as best as they can ??  despite what the us might want ?

the US/EU/NATO cant have it both ways , help defend them as you said you would , or get the fcuk out of their way and let them do it anyway they can

if it was my country at war , being eaten up by putin id be advocating nuclear arms into the future for sure as our best long term deterent

SX

[fathertime]

Personally, I think the easiest way to calm the situation in Ukraine down is for Obama to go public with the secret agreement the US made with Ukraine at the Budapest Moratorium.  Obama should say that Ukraine transferred 10 nuclear weapons to US custody, and the US agreed to return those nuclear weapons to Ukraine if Russia reneged on their security promises under the Budapest Moratorium. 

If Obama publicly said that the US would return those 10 nuclear weapons to Ukraine if Russia didn't immediately withdraw from Crimea and the Donbass, I think we would instantly see Putin think twice.  Because there is no way Putin wants to see those "fascist Nazis in Kiev" get their hands on nukes.  Even if he thinks he could take Kiev in 2 weeks, Putin knows Kiev would be able to strike Russia hard with the nukes in that 2 weeks.

It doesn't matter if there was ever a secret agreement or not.  Documents could be forged.  But it would give a public, legitimate reason for the US to put 10 nukes in Kiev's hands.

That is an interesting suggestion.  It won't cime to pass but if it did that would set a new precedent and anytime a country got in trouble with the USA, Russia could also forge a document that would allow for the secret transfer of a few nukes..perhaps starting with Cuba.

Fathertime!

[southernX]

Who are you to dictate what a fair price for gas is?  Russia is free to charge what the market will bear.  The west doesn't sit on the resource yet appartently still thinks they should dictate a 'fair' price. 

Fathertime!

FT
WHO AM I ?to dictate a fair gas price ??

go do some research mate ,
 google the amount of customers/countrys who have taken gazprom to court over their pricing &have won

fair crack of the whip , you need to school up a little mate

SX

[fathertime]

FT, show me where i said syria or libya should have them please ?but given the weak response from western powers, why would you not expect them to desire to ?

you dont want the US to help ukraine militarily, , you dont want the US to keep its agreements internationly, but you also dont want ukraine to have nuclear, all the while you sit completly protected ,

hypocrisy
help defend them or let them develop weapons that can ,

your attitude is selfish hypocrisy when your own self is protected

given the US /EU NATO , ETC lack of military help , why would you now expect any country from here on in to look to protect themselves as best as they can ??  despite what the us might want ?

the US/EU/NATO cant have it both ways , help defend them as you said you would , or get the fcuk out of their way and let them do it anyway they can

if it was my country at war , being eaten up by putin id be advocating nuclear arms into the future for sure as our best long term deterent

SX

I agree.  We should stay out of it. No men, no arms to either side.  If countries want to build up their own militaries I'm all for it.

Where did I say you said Syria or Libya can't have nukes?
Fathertime!

[fathertime]

FT
WHO AM I ?to dictate a fair gas price ??

go do some research mate ,
 google the amount of customers/countrys who have taken gazprom to court over their pricing &have won

fair crack of the whip , you need to school up a little mate

SX

If Russia sits on the resource they can charge whatever the market bears or sell elsewhere.  Why would Russia adhere to some western court's decision?   Are countries not free to buy their gas from somewhere else?  I do not recognize your right to dictate prices for their resources. 

Fathertime!

[Doll]

Who are you to dictate what a fair price for gas is?  Russia is free to charge what the market will bear.  The west doesn't sit on the resource yet appartently still thinks they should dictate a 'fair' price. 

Fathertime!

Thank you, you saved me time to answer))

[Doll]

doll , gazprom has been charging extorniate prices for gas to all of the EU  & UKRAINE for way too long
they levy a price for their gas depending on the  volume and how weak/gas dependant  they percieve the buyer country  to be , not on fair charges for the product that foster good open business relationships ,
gasprom is  corrupt and manipulative , everyone knows this

SX

Ukraine got it for free.

[Doll]

МОСКВА, 8 июля. /ИТАР-ТАСС/. Украина импортировала в июне 1,7 млрд куб. м российского газа на $838 млн. Общий долг Украины за поставленное "Газпромом" сырье достиг $5,296 млрд. Об этом сообщил журналистам глава корпорации Алексей Миллер.

[Bee Farmer]

It won't cime to pass but if it did that would set a new precedent and anytime a country got in trouble with the USA, Russia could also forge a document that would allow for the secret transfer of a few nukes..perhaps starting with Cuba.

Don't forget the nuclear non-proliferation treaty...

Ukraine would be an exception.  Ukraine was an established nuclear power, with the world's 3rd largest nuclear arsenal.  Giving them nukes would involve giving nukes to a country that was already a nuclear power.

I know of no other country which possessed nuclear weapons, which gave up their nukes.  This is what makes Ukraine the exception.  Giving Ukraine nukes would be re-arming a nuclear state...and giving nukes to any other nation would be giving nukes to a non-nuclear state.

But then again, any country with uranium fuel nuclear reactors are building nuclear weapons.  That is the ONLY reason countries ever have uranium fuel nuclear reactors...to produce material for nuclear weapons.  If countries wanted nuclear energy for medical reasons or electricity....they would use a thorium reactor.  Safer and cheaper.  The only downside to a thorium reactor is that none of the byproducts can be used for nuclear weapons...which explains why no country wants a thorium reactor.

[fathertime]

Thank you, you saved me time to answer))

Clearly if given the chance western powers would turn Russia into a slave state if they could through neocolonialism and multinationals. You got western people trying to dictate the price  russia sells their gas at while I paid 100 dollars for small part on my Grohe (German) faucet. Russia can charge what they feel they need to until somebody sells for less and takes their customers away.

Fathertime!

[fathertime]

Don't forget the nuclear non-proliferation treaty...

Ukraine would be an exception. 

You might feel they are the exception since it might forward the outcomes you prefer, but I doubt Russia would see it that way. The end result would be nukes in a countrt or two where the US has infringed on sovereignty.

Fathertime!

[Isthmus]

Bee Farmer, Kazakhstan also relinquished the nuclear weapons it inherited from the ex CCCP arsenal. Given the rumblings coming from the Kremlin recently if I was in power in Astana I would be looking to re-acquire this capability ASAP.

[BillyB]

Ukraine got it for free.

And Russia got their ex president, Yanukovych. Free gas in exchange for control over a nation. Russia got the better deal.