It doesn’t involve US or EU troops, or Trump growing a spine, or Europe to stop screwing around, all it involves is a realization that the contract in the Budapest Memorandum is null and void, so that the US and UK give back the nuclear weapons that they induced Ukraine to give up using illusory and unenforceable promises.
What a stupid post. The Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons. Those were SOVIET assets, not Ukrainian ones. And they couldn't have fired them without Moscow's involvement.
Your Putin-centric* politics are showing - "The Ukraine"... I'll bet you're a huge fan of the likes of Gustavo Lira and Colonel MacGregor. And the Soviet Union was no more in 1994, it ended in 1991 - you must be using Putin's version of history. And the technology for making them and firing them, and detonating the warheads was developed in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, so yes, Ukraine could have fired, armed, and detonated them without Moscow's meddling. In fact, the rockets were made in Donetsk, and the rocket motors were made in Kiev... You might want to have a look at the Belovezha Accords, the treaty which created the Confederation of Independent States - CIS - in 1994, too... It's on this site: https://e-cis.info/
* Not "Russo-centric", Putin is destroying Russia and its people.
You really think they care that much about their country to use them against Russia when they're are countries willing to pay a LOT of money to get hold of nukes? Heck Ukraine sends to have had a hand in the J6 hostilities in commenting violence, and likely tried to take out Trump once or twice.
It's the only practical solution - Putin has had Ukraine in his sights for over 20 years - see https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics (the section on "Gutting Atlanticism"). Putin has used his nuclear weapons threats to emasculate the Western response to his moves, and quite effectively so. If he had competently-led and non-corrupt leadership in his armed forces and intelligence services, this would have been over with two months after it started - but now it's a contest to see which country loses fastest and most effectively. Russia has been slaughtering its citizens and decimating its army going on for nearly three and a half years - and Putin still has failed to totally control the territories he claimed three years ago. He's up to his eyeballs in hock to the Chinese, and he's wrecking his domestic economy. If Russia had a 25th Amendment, he would have been history a long time ago - but he's Tsar until Russia unsticks itself from the Middle Ages - and he's managed to kill off or intimidate any possible rivals or successors.
The only way for this conflict to be brought to a halt is if Ukraine has a comparable nuclear weapons threat to Putin's - so that will counterbalance that threat - and without that nuclear threat, Putin has nothing - obviously, given the performance (or lack thereof) of his armed forces. It would be an armed standoff until such time as the Russian people decide that enough is enough, and decide to dump the Tsar-Boyar-serf system they have, and come into the 21st century - or the 22nd...
Practical for Ukraine involves killing their own citizens and blaming the Russians for it in an effort to pander to western sympathies (done a few times during this 3 yr conflict). And it's quite possible the CIA was behind some of that, so that there would be enough anger levied towards the Russians to justify ramping up a deployment. We, the US, are guilty of fomenting a lot of this for the express purpose of taking down Russia. We've violated treaty after treaty, repeatedly backing Russia into a corner until it had to fight back. WE, the US and its allies, are TRYING to foment a war with Russia, and this time using Ukraine as the proxy victim fighting force so that we (along with rich folks) can rape a country of its resources, set up a western front to further box in Russia and look noble in the process. We've thrown our allies under the bus (bombing the Nord Stream II pipeline) and showing up the next day with natural gas contracts from US sources (disclaimer: I own pipeline stocks in the US). We have GOT to change our ways, or prosecute those who are goading countries into conflict for our domination.
I love our country and what our original ideals were. I just hate those in power who have been fomenting conflict, including Obama, Nuland, and the CIA, when a carrot would have worked much better to bring people along, instead of simply bribing its leaders with the notion that THAT will keep our enemy from persuading them to go to their side.
Except that Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine since 1997, when he got his PhD in Natural Resource Economics from St Petersburg Mining University. Putin knows what Ukraine has in the way of natural resources, including oil and natural gas formations off the Crimean coast - and warm water ports at Sevastopol and Feodosia. And if anyone is goading countries into conflict with Russia, it's Putin, with the activities his National Security State has been carrying out in the Baltic States, in the former members of the Eastern Bloc, and in Western Europe. It's the sort of subversive activity and attempted - and in the case of Eastern Ukraine, at least partially successful - colonization of Russia's neighbors. Putin has managed to scare both Sweden and Finland into joining NATO, thus increasing his perceived threat level. As for the ex-Soviet countries east and south of the Urals, the more troops he draws from them to send to be slaughtered in Ukraine - because if he dared to mobilize ethnic Russians from Western Russia, he'd get more massive resistance - he risks driving them away as well. He's doubling down on some very bad policy decisions in Ukraine, after the initial invasion failed in 2022, he should have called it a day and gotten out as gracefully as he could - he could have blamed it on rogue generals and gotten away with it - but he doubled down and has been doing so for over three years. And if you look at a map - https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-20-2025 - very nearly the same as two years ago - it's just a record of military failure on the part of the Russians. And Russia can't continue this for two more years, much less the 21 years Putin is talking about - see https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russias-weakness-offers-leverage
The actual, as opposed to declaratory, policy of the US with regard to Putin and Russia has been, under both Biden and Trump, has been to keep Putin in power, and Russia under Putin's dictatorship. If Putin goes away, Russia could end up like Yugoslavia after Tito died - in a series of hot civil wars between breakaway republics - Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Slovenia. Tito, like Putin, had gotten rid of anyone who could succeed him, and the result was chaos after Tito died, it was a power struggle ending up in secession and war, in a country made up of diverse religious and ethnic groups. The same process, albeit much more peaceful, has happened in the former Czechoslovakia, now separated into the Czech Republic, Czechia, and Slovakia. Russia could well end up like this - but with some of the resultant republics armed with nuclear weapons - and it's possible that wars, like the one between Kosovo and Serbia, could erupt, with really unpleasant consequences for countries downwind.
Ukraine, therefore, must not be allowed to win, because if Ukraine won, Putin would be out of power. Thus, the US and its allies have dribbled and slow walked arms and materiel to Ukraine sufficient to prevent a victory by either Ukraine or Russia, which presumably keeps a stable status quo. The trouble is that Putin is in his early 70s and is in a very high stress job which he can't get away from, so that status quo might not last that long - and plans appear not to have ben made, just the usual kicking the can down the road... But the last thing the US and most of its allies want is for Russia to lose.
Some good points there. But Putin is eventually going to die, and I'm not sure we have any plans for avoiding the outcomes you're mentioning. But maybe it needs to have more countries break out and keep more local control, and let people have their own sovereignty. It's harder to govern a lot of disparate parts/cultures, but I can see where we don't want them weakened so much that neighboring countries do a land rush for resources or expansion. Maybe if Putin dies, we can put in an offer to buy Russia. ;-)
What a stupid post. The Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons. Those were SOVIET assets, not Ukrainian ones. And they couldn't have fired them without Moscow's involvement.
Your Putin-centric* politics are showing - "The Ukraine"... I'll bet you're a huge fan of the likes of Gustavo Lira and Colonel MacGregor. And the Soviet Union was no more in 1994, it ended in 1991 - you must be using Putin's version of history. And the technology for making them and firing them, and detonating the warheads was developed in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, so yes, Ukraine could have fired, armed, and detonated them without Moscow's meddling. In fact, the rockets were made in Donetsk, and the rocket motors were made in Kiev... You might want to have a look at the Belovezha Accords, the treaty which created the Confederation of Independent States - CIS - in 1994, too... It's on this site: https://e-cis.info/
* Not "Russo-centric", Putin is destroying Russia and its people.
You really think they care that much about their country to use them against Russia when they're are countries willing to pay a LOT of money to get hold of nukes? Heck Ukraine sends to have had a hand in the J6 hostilities in commenting violence, and likely tried to take out Trump once or twice.
What kind of post is this?
It's the only practical solution - Putin has had Ukraine in his sights for over 20 years - see https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics (the section on "Gutting Atlanticism"). Putin has used his nuclear weapons threats to emasculate the Western response to his moves, and quite effectively so. If he had competently-led and non-corrupt leadership in his armed forces and intelligence services, this would have been over with two months after it started - but now it's a contest to see which country loses fastest and most effectively. Russia has been slaughtering its citizens and decimating its army going on for nearly three and a half years - and Putin still has failed to totally control the territories he claimed three years ago. He's up to his eyeballs in hock to the Chinese, and he's wrecking his domestic economy. If Russia had a 25th Amendment, he would have been history a long time ago - but he's Tsar until Russia unsticks itself from the Middle Ages - and he's managed to kill off or intimidate any possible rivals or successors.
The only way for this conflict to be brought to a halt is if Ukraine has a comparable nuclear weapons threat to Putin's - so that will counterbalance that threat - and without that nuclear threat, Putin has nothing - obviously, given the performance (or lack thereof) of his armed forces. It would be an armed standoff until such time as the Russian people decide that enough is enough, and decide to dump the Tsar-Boyar-serf system they have, and come into the 21st century - or the 22nd...
Practical for Ukraine involves killing their own citizens and blaming the Russians for it in an effort to pander to western sympathies (done a few times during this 3 yr conflict). And it's quite possible the CIA was behind some of that, so that there would be enough anger levied towards the Russians to justify ramping up a deployment. We, the US, are guilty of fomenting a lot of this for the express purpose of taking down Russia. We've violated treaty after treaty, repeatedly backing Russia into a corner until it had to fight back. WE, the US and its allies, are TRYING to foment a war with Russia, and this time using Ukraine as the proxy victim fighting force so that we (along with rich folks) can rape a country of its resources, set up a western front to further box in Russia and look noble in the process. We've thrown our allies under the bus (bombing the Nord Stream II pipeline) and showing up the next day with natural gas contracts from US sources (disclaimer: I own pipeline stocks in the US). We have GOT to change our ways, or prosecute those who are goading countries into conflict for our domination.
I love our country and what our original ideals were. I just hate those in power who have been fomenting conflict, including Obama, Nuland, and the CIA, when a carrot would have worked much better to bring people along, instead of simply bribing its leaders with the notion that THAT will keep our enemy from persuading them to go to their side.
Except that Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine since 1997, when he got his PhD in Natural Resource Economics from St Petersburg Mining University. Putin knows what Ukraine has in the way of natural resources, including oil and natural gas formations off the Crimean coast - and warm water ports at Sevastopol and Feodosia. And if anyone is goading countries into conflict with Russia, it's Putin, with the activities his National Security State has been carrying out in the Baltic States, in the former members of the Eastern Bloc, and in Western Europe. It's the sort of subversive activity and attempted - and in the case of Eastern Ukraine, at least partially successful - colonization of Russia's neighbors. Putin has managed to scare both Sweden and Finland into joining NATO, thus increasing his perceived threat level. As for the ex-Soviet countries east and south of the Urals, the more troops he draws from them to send to be slaughtered in Ukraine - because if he dared to mobilize ethnic Russians from Western Russia, he'd get more massive resistance - he risks driving them away as well. He's doubling down on some very bad policy decisions in Ukraine, after the initial invasion failed in 2022, he should have called it a day and gotten out as gracefully as he could - he could have blamed it on rogue generals and gotten away with it - but he doubled down and has been doing so for over three years. And if you look at a map - https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-20-2025 - very nearly the same as two years ago - it's just a record of military failure on the part of the Russians. And Russia can't continue this for two more years, much less the 21 years Putin is talking about - see https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russias-weakness-offers-leverage
The actual, as opposed to declaratory, policy of the US with regard to Putin and Russia has been, under both Biden and Trump, has been to keep Putin in power, and Russia under Putin's dictatorship. If Putin goes away, Russia could end up like Yugoslavia after Tito died - in a series of hot civil wars between breakaway republics - Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Slovenia. Tito, like Putin, had gotten rid of anyone who could succeed him, and the result was chaos after Tito died, it was a power struggle ending up in secession and war, in a country made up of diverse religious and ethnic groups. The same process, albeit much more peaceful, has happened in the former Czechoslovakia, now separated into the Czech Republic, Czechia, and Slovakia. Russia could well end up like this - but with some of the resultant republics armed with nuclear weapons - and it's possible that wars, like the one between Kosovo and Serbia, could erupt, with really unpleasant consequences for countries downwind.
Ukraine, therefore, must not be allowed to win, because if Ukraine won, Putin would be out of power. Thus, the US and its allies have dribbled and slow walked arms and materiel to Ukraine sufficient to prevent a victory by either Ukraine or Russia, which presumably keeps a stable status quo. The trouble is that Putin is in his early 70s and is in a very high stress job which he can't get away from, so that status quo might not last that long - and plans appear not to have ben made, just the usual kicking the can down the road... But the last thing the US and most of its allies want is for Russia to lose.
Some good points there. But Putin is eventually going to die, and I'm not sure we have any plans for avoiding the outcomes you're mentioning. But maybe it needs to have more countries break out and keep more local control, and let people have their own sovereignty. It's harder to govern a lot of disparate parts/cultures, but I can see where we don't want them weakened so much that neighboring countries do a land rush for resources or expansion. Maybe if Putin dies, we can put in an offer to buy Russia. ;-)
see this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt8VYEGDO70 - Putin might be in a bit of trouble...