Comments by "Sergey Bebenin" (@sergeybebenin) on "Trump NATO comments spark Europe nuclear debate | DW News" video.

Deterrence "probably works"? 🤦‍♂️ There's a good reason North Korea has never been attacked. And of course Ukraine should have kept some arsenal. And of course the signal to other states is - "get nukes for guaranteed deterrence". What else did you think would happen after russia ripped up every possible treaty and annexed territories of a state that gave up nukes?
138
@timmy-wj2hc 🤦‍♂️ Russia didn't exist just as Ukraine didn't exist. It used to be 2 Soviet republics with long abbreviations. History books are your friends, bud. Launch codes? Ukraine doesn't need launch codes lol. Ukraine Soviet Republic was servicing them, actually designed rockets and infrastructure and could repurpose a small amount for themselves. Oh and by the way, it goes beyond nukes... like I said, history books are your friends. Read up on Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction
20
@williamlanger9229 you don't need launch codes to disassemble them and use parts in your own missiles. Moreover, Ukraine gave up conventional cruise missiles and strategic bombers (many were literally cut up for scrap metal). Those same missiles were launched on Ukraine during this war. Ukraine simply didn't want to waste money on this thinking that everyone around is friendly. So again, it's a pipedream to think countries will now give up what they have. In fact, many are arming instead
8
@johnc3525 I've been hearing about NKorea nuke program since like late 90s. Just because they never officially opened up about it, doesn't mean it wasn't well in the works. Similar to how Iran is today. There's a reason USA stays away from Iran.
3
@aleksandarm4489 dude's account is 11mo old. I took the bait, shame on me 😁
3
@williamlanger9229 nukes were in silos. What are u talking about
2
@olska9498 One simple question. What year and what territory did India annex? What territory did Pakistan occupy? Kashmir doesn't count because it was before any nukes. India "weaponized" nukes in the 1970s. Since then every single spark of conflict did not produce any occupation. As a Ukrainian, I'll take quick conflicts (even with big casualties) any day over 10+ years of occupation, annexation and now 2 years of daily bombardment all over the country. You know... The biggest war since ww2
2
@prismpyre7653 take? What does it have to do with "taking" something? NKorea and Iran are dangerous regimes the world would be better without. You don't like NKorean example? Name one nuclear or near nuclear state that has had territory annexed or is occupied.
1
@olska9498 ok, give me One example of a nuclear power state (or even close to it) that has it's territory annexed or at least occupied.
1
@olska9498 Attacked isn't what I asked. USA has been attacked too. Argentina was kicked out within days conventionally. There was no threat to UK. You don't seem to understand what I asked. I'm asking about situations similar to Ukraine situation since 2014. Or USA staying in Afghanistan (or Iraq). And who annexed who in India/Pakistan reference?
1
@olska9498 I clarified myself later on, are you taking my words as a gospel? India Pakistan both have the same deterrent and it's literally the absolute opposite of the Ukraine situation. 1987? Brasstacks? Are you kidding me giving this example? The end result of this "conflict" was troop withdrawal (same year) i.e. nuclear deterrent works. So who annexed who? In Ukraine case we are literally hearing almost monthly threats of nuke use if Ukrainians will try to take back Crimea. And of course no they aren't withdrawing troops because they know they have nukes and Ukraine doesn't Libya and Iraqi were supposedly working on chemical weapons, not nukes.
1
@olska9498 No you are making up stuff and twisting the narrative. 1. UK was never occupied. The conflict lasted days. 2. No one annexed (YOU said it) territories in Pakistan and BOTH India and Pakistan have a deterrent so it's not even a correct example. And of course forces went home after those quick conflicts. 3. I'm no CIA to judge whose nuclear ambition program was farthest along but as I already explained, no nuclear power is under occupation or had its territories annexed. And you failed to provide examples... Because they don't exist. Based on India/Pakistan example we can say that a similar situation would happen in Ukraine (i.e. no annexation or occupation). Parts of Ukraine have been occupied for 10 years now. And constant open threats of nuclear retaliation. These are facts. And it's a documented fact that Ukraine gave up cruise missiles and strategic bombers during Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction so it goes beyond just nukes. So 🤡 are those that believe in disarming.
1
@olska9498 oh how sleazy. So no annexation as you stated multiple times? What happened to this claim of yours? Kargil conflict only took a few months and no occupation thereafter. Siachen conflict? 🤦‍♂️ Actually thank you so much for bringing this up. In 1984 India (which already got their nukes) tried to occupy a small part of Pakistan, which did NOT have nukes at the time! They got it in 1998.... And mysteriously this conflict ended in 2000s (as you said yourself) after both sides established deterrent. Great job 👍😁 You think I just take what you say as a fact? 🤦‍♂️
1