Comments by "Emir" (@irongron) on "Jade McGlynn - On the Brink of Historic Failure of Western Policy in Ukraine Risks Defeat to Russia." video.
-
64
-
With the nukes, I had to make this as a separate comment, because it is so important. Leonid Kravchuk, the first President of Ukraine, went to his grave regretting letting Bill Clinton and Bush Senior, tricking him into giving up the nukes. Also it is complete and utter nonsense that the "codes were all controlled from Moscow" and that keeping the nukes was useless.The soviet Union never implemented PAL's (i.e. Permissive Action Links, technology which the USA shared the the USSR), because it as too backwards and if communications was lost with Moscow, how could they launch the nukes ? The codes could be over-ridden, I remember an old ex-Soviet Ukrainian retired General stating this a decade ago at least, confirming this. So forget what other "russia adjacent" pundits et. al. tell you regarding this.
12
-
@timthetiny7538 We've got nuclear reactors here and nothing has been "sold" on the "black market" all these decades. It had nothing to do with the "black market", that's what clueless journalists and fools like you thought. It was about abiding by the START treaty - As the Soviet Union began to collapse, the George H.W. Bush Administration sought to preserve the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which promised to decrease the world’s strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles by 80 percent. After nearly a decade of negotiations, it was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1991. But with the USSR about to shatter into five sovereign countries, how would this two-party deal endure?
Later that month, America’s first ambassador to the Russian Federation, Robert Strauss, wrote to Washington about the hysteria caused by reports of Yeltsin considering a nuclear strike on Ukraine. The situation was “made worse,” the emissary wrote, by the new president “acknowledging he had discussed the possibility with military experts.”
In his memoirs and later interviews, Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert titled it “Why We Must be Adamant about De-nuclearizing Ukraine.” He noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor. Gompert dismissed these objections, and the Bush administration continued on its path. The document, however, bears witness to the persistent debate that unfolded within the administration. - no mention whatsoever of your "black market" nonsense.
1
-
1