Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "What are the Implications for the World of the Ukraine War?" video.

Ukraine did not have the launch codes for the Soviet nuclear weapons, which means they never had a nuclear deterrent against Russia and that you (professor) are presenting an invalid argument. The Soviet-era stockpile of nuclear weapons was actually viewed as something of a liability; largely due to maintenance issues, so Russia and America collaborated in decommissioning them. What happens if Ukraine wins? It's simpler to discuss that after the nuclear war between Russia and the Western powers; but roughly speaking everybody loses then. What happens if Russia wins? Then Russia would set the terms and conditions... I would expect Russia to absorb the occupied Oblasts (who already voted to rejoin Russia); plus Odessa Oblast (of cultural significance to Russia) and the remainder of Ukraine be declared neutral. What are the implications for the World? It would mean both NATO and the EU don't get to expand towards Russia; the foreign corporations that bought into Ukraine would lose most of their assets and America would have to find another war in which to "invest". Relations between East and West will likely take decades to repair; the EU will need to find a new energy and grain provider; while Russia informs the World Bank and other lenders, that the value of investments can go up or down (and they lost theirs). So it was not nuclear weapons that was deterring Russia; it was an agreement that Western interests breached; the alternative to neutrality was very likely war (and the major powers all knew this). It's a familiar concept in Eastern Europe, a scenario where everyone loses, but those with more lose more; so how much have you got? Hmm? As for stories that America is involved in other countries for reasons of: freedom; democracy or a humanitarian cause, that just doesn't mesh with reality; but there no money for them in Ukraine. As for "a NATO intervention to save civilian life"; they don't and while it is not legal to use nuclear weapons on countries with no nuclear weapons, it's perfectly legal to use them on ones that do. So you might decide if America was bluffing regarding the Cuban missile crisis; because it's the same scenario and this is what America is currently investing in (that prospect). The conflict in Ukraine ends when Ukraine runs out of troops, or there's a global war... that much is plain to see. Your choice...
1
@patrickdolinski7105 I'm not claiming to be an authority on nuclear weapons, Comrade Dolinski: however there is a lot of information freely available in the public domain and that includes the quantity (and quality) of Soviet-era weapons of which Ukraine had custody; a concept called a "Permissive Action Link" (PAL) in case nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands which originated in America (in the 1960's); it has various forms, Russia employed this technology too; there was also a civil war in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022 "By early 1994 the only barrier to Ukraine's ability to exercise full operational control over the nuclear weapons on missiles and bombers deployed on its soil was its inability to circumvent Russian permissive action links (PALs)" ("Pulling Back from the Nuclear Brink" by Barry R. Schneider, William L. Dowdy). "Ukraine did not possess nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were not the third largest nuclear power. They did not give up those weapons because they did not possess them". (Deterrence in Ukraine, by Jeffrey Lewis; Aaron Stein) There are other sources, but these two indicate that the Prof is quite wrong in his claim that Ukraine ever had a nuclear deterrent against Russia using the Soviet weapons. After the armed overthrow of government in 2014: Russia annexed Crimea and three Oblasts voted for independence (no country "recognised, until Russia did in 2022); the same regions then voted to (re)join Russia. (The Western media claimed these results were fixed, not that regions haven't the power to vote for independence; so they looked like fools) The annexation of Crimea was conducted by Russia, two options on the ballot; Ukraine or Russia (no independence option). It was an easy choice Ukraine was bankrupt... The three regions most likely conducted their own independence referendums (or Russia would have recognised them immediately); they mainly speak Russian there. Rejoining Russia I don't know about; but it seems they prefer the Eastern European model to the Western one; that seems to be going bankrupt. I lived in USSR as it was breaking up; 1992-3 I worked out of the House of Unions, employed to break up trouble in the Moscow casinos, thankfully now banned. So I knew most of the leaders of various armed groups... and they knew me and my partner (I found that out when I walked into the Hotel Ukraine). Ukraine got a pretty good deal: independence; division of assets military and commercial; gas tariffs and port leasing fees... that held until 2014, after which foreign corporations took control of Ukrainian agriculture; likely the gas-pipeline too... all very provocative. The bottom line however is, Ukraine was given a choice, neutrality or war; they made the wrong choice and so Russia holds them entirely responsible (as is their way) and Western commentators (like the Prof) don't seem to have a clue what they are dealing with; currently they are sleepwalking us into a global conflict.
1
@patrickdolinski7105 It certainly is a problem if opposing sides cannot agree on a few facts; it's another, slightly different problem, when both sides can arrange mutually agreed facts to make valid opposing arguments and it's a very serious problem when the talking stops and violence starts. I'm not clear on what your perspective is based (or your prior profession); but I don't regard the Western media (in general) as particularly reliable and they also seem to (mistakenly) assume that other countries: should share their interests, or fears, or operate by the same rules (as their country); or even listen to them. It might simplify discussing matters, regarding this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, if you can tell me, what's in this for you? (or even which country you call "home"). I call Scotland home; back in 1992-3 (as USSR was breaking up) I was a "Mayfair top dealer"; I wanted to leave London (she broke my heart) and the recruitment agency, said Don't go! (to Russia) and they work on commission?! When I got there I discovered: I had not been given a particularly accurate description of Russia and it was fortunate a monthly Moscow travel pass, unlike London, was 450 Roubles (approximately £0.30) as I kept getting lost in Metro because I couldn't even read the writing, or speak Russian. While it might be a reasonable description of Russia then as a kleptocracy; it was my choice to live and work there; I take full responsibility for the decisions I make (not other people's); I would describe Moscow then as similar to Chicago 1930's (as seen in the movies); the people with money (our customers) were usually members of heavily armed groups, some vying for their country's independence, or disputing territory; while my objective was to entertain them and the "house" (casino) has rules (they are our rules). Things have no doubt moved on since then, casinos are banned (considered immoral); but is it not a fact that Moscow is the second largest city in Europe? I mean given the choice, over twelve million people live there; Russia has an NHS; state funded education; low cost energy; food and transport; free internet; but quite low wages. That's not to say things are perfect; "ownership" is a key feature of capitalism; there the state owns the land; they turn the hot water off a month a year; it's different from here. As far as I'm aware: Ukraine held it's own independence referendum in 1991; Russia "recognised" Ukraine as a country in 1991; terms and conditions mutually agreed by 1994. Those terms and conditions included military and commercial assets; gas tariffs and a port leasing fee. If that's factual then Ukraine was an independent country, from 1994. Neither questioned the 92% vote in favour of independence, on an 84% turnout; or it's validity. From that date Ukraine was totally responsible for the decisions it made. Putin became leader of Russia last day of 1999; some here claim that his objective is to re-establish USSR, but it took him 22 years to decide to do that; which doesn't seem at all likely to me, instead I suggest we (both) look at the map of USSR 1938; in my opinion (just an opinion) that's what Russia (not Putin) wants; if Ukraine isn't neutral. I do agree with you that the nuclear weapons issue is a bit of a "red herring"; both the weapons in Ukraine and those in West Germany had PAL encryption security, to prevent misuse; while it was in the interest of both Russia and America that Soviet era weapons in Ukraine were decommissioned. Also the rotting stockpiles of chemical weapons. I consider it a fact that Russia insisted: Ukraine was an independent neutral country, without external political or economic interference and that it's borders be respected. This seemed to have been agreed in 2014; between Russia and Ukraine, with cosignatories the UK and America (offering assurances). This agreement was signed after the armed overthrow of the Ukrainian government, after they refused to agree to closer ties to the EU. The claims were the government was corrupt and had rigged the elections; since Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe (against some stiff competition); I could believe the government was corrupt; not sure about the elections, but the rebellion started an eight year civil war; Russia moved on Crimea; three regions voted for independence (nobody recognised). Since 2014 there have been seven regional referendums; that much is a fact; are we supposed to believe all of them were rigged? These regions are predominantly Russian speaking people; the referendum results (if legit) are heavily not in favour of remaining with Ukraine. I doubt I could get odds on the Crimean one; I might question the legitimacy, but not that result.
1
@patrickdolinski7105 You asked me a question, "does Ukraine deserve to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with borders most recently established at the collapse of the former USSR". In my view the USSR; allowed the former Soviet states, in the West, to hold independence referendums and return to being independent countries; while it denied independence to others. In 1991 Ukraine did exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with established borders; it was a fairly amicable split; that was the way things were for a good 20 years; while Russia leased a key port; paid increasingly high tariffs on gas to the EU. Former Soviet states, now countries joined NATO and the EU; but Russia was quite insistent the Yugoslavia and Ukraine didn't. When the EU and NATO both held summits in 2008, they indicated to Ukraine that they would like to offer membership; that did not go down well with Russia. I won't discuss what happened to Yugoslavia, except to say my partner lost family and friends when violence erupted there; NATO intervened and that country broke up. Maybe you would care to check this out for yourself, but according to "Oakland Institute" from 2014 foreign companies moved into Ukraine and took over agriculture; it looks likely they also had a controlling interest in that gas pipeline (America was so interested in' protesting alternative pipeline). It may not seem fair to you, but Russia would hold Ukraine totally responsible for allowing that to happen; I would consider all this "corporate interest" as economic interference; in which case the neutrality agreement has failed and so Russia is compelled to react with violence. So no; I don't believe Ukraine deserves to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with 1991 borders; because they gave up that agreement. I also don't believe the Western narrative that this conflict was unprovoked or unexpected. I consider Prof Mearsheimer "Why is Ukraine the West's fault" as an accurate appraisal. Nor do I believe America is here to help; I believe the plan was to dent the EU economically; if that wasn't the plan that's how things have gone. I would advise the UK to mind it's own business (it's not good at that); if America wants direct conflict with Russia better to just let them get on with it. Otherwise, only Russia and Ukraine can resolve this conflict. I don't know what America thinks it's playing at; perhaps it believes it's own publicity, but I don't. In my view Ukrainian is the architect of it's own destruction, because it broke the rules.
1
@patrickdolinski7105 What a cop-out... a rather mealy mouthed response...really. Prof J Mearsheimer already clarified what was going to happen, years before it happened and our leaders don't listen (even to us). At least we agree on one thing: Russia and America both had PAL (Permissive Action Link) security on their nuclear weapons; so this Professors argument that Ukraine gave up a nuclear deterrent against Russian invasion is invalid; I don't think he is being intentionally misleading (but some others certainly are), he's just wrong. Me, I'm just popping bubbles; our leaders seem to believe their own publicity (Libya was the final straw for me). If Ukraine capitulates; they won't have to pay back any of those loans; there's always that.
1
@patrickdolinski7105 I'm just popping bubbles: USSR (and America) had PAL security systems built into their nuclear weapons, as a precautionary measure; that's not just "common sense" it also appears to be common knowledge (this Professor seems to lack both). Ukraine gained ownership of Soviet era nuclear power, but not the nuclear weapons; so they had no nuclear deterrent against Russia; that fact destroys the professors argument (and any built on this faulty premise) Pop! "Russia running over it's neighbor because it can", is another fallacious argument. If Ukraine wasn't neutral, it was war (Russia made that plain again and again). The Western powers and their "New World Order" (NWO) "allowing Russia"... Well the West isn't "The World"; the NWO only benefits a select few and short of nuclear war, I don't see a thing they can do. While the claim that America is involved for reasons of: freedom; democracy or even people, is not supported by their history; it's invariably their economic interests. Pop!I If Ukraine capitulates: the "investments" (made with public money); the corporate assets; the rebuilding contract; the loans (plus interest), they will all be worth nothing. Pop! So there are a few profound lessons here: The Western powers need to mind their own business (they aren't much good at that, take a look around); stick your nose into Russia/Ukrainian business, it's likely to get broken and call it sophistry, if you like, but based on simple arithmetic; sooner, or later, Ukraine runs out of troops. Anyway, if you enjoy people talking about things they don't really know about; there are plenty of them. The Western powers provoked this disaster in Ukraine; they did this!
1
Yes, tell that to America... interfering in Eastern Europe, a costly mistake and it's possible Ukraine may cease to exist if this continues.
1