• This topic has 8 voices and 12 replies.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #346386

    Anonymous

    image

    Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY.

    The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact "to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/10/ukraine-nuclear/6250815/

    #429863

    Anonymous

    And the moral of the story, folks, is:
    Never give up your weapons in exchange for assurances.

    #429864

    Anonymous

    This is nonsense.

    Ukraine should go nuclear for what? Throwing a missile some hundred kilometers into Russia? And then what? Pollute Russia, pollute Ukraine and pollute the rest of Europe.

    I can't believe this kind of talk comes from Ukranians who suffered the Chernobyl accident back in '88. I was a kid then and the radioactive cloud reached us down in Greece.

    I can't believe this kind of talk comes from prople who call themselves Nationalists! Nationalism is supposed to be based on the wellness and fertility of the homeland. Not on turning it into a radioactive wasteland.

    Ukraine's potential on building back a strong economy relies heavily on agriculture. How can one pursue Ukraine's interests and in the same time thinking about nuking the area down?

    #429865

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Ukraine should go nuclear for what? Throwing a missile some hundred kilometers into Russia? And then what? Pollute Russia, pollute Ukraine and pollute the rest of Europe.

    That is just an opinion of a minor group of MPs. I'd say, Ukrainian nukes are the weapons of mass pshychological rather than of biological desrtuction. That is not af if Ukraine cannot build ones technologically but the talk itself is already a weapon aimed at some hawks in the Kremlin. I believe it's more of that than of real willingness to have those weapons. Ukrainians are greedy. We would not like to pay billions of dollars for a nuclear programme and then for maintaining such weapons being pressured at the same time by all of the members of the nuclear club to abandon them.
    So, the idea of the sly Ukrainians is to blackmail the West in to financing our army and to blackmail the Moskals by threatening them with the ghost weapons. :)

    #429866

    Anonymous

    I don't think it would be in interest of Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons at this point.

    1) Ukraine is far too weak economically and should really be focusing now on rebuilding their treasury, creating jobs, increasing living standards, improving public services and eliminating corruption.

    2) Building nukes would be deterrent against Russia, yes, but it would also be seen by Moscow as provocation and risks being attacked by Russia in defense of their own security and borders. Also, with how unstable Ukraine is, I am pretty sure Western countries would be against them falling in wrong hands.

    #429867

    Anonymous

    nuclear warheads arent that much of a deterrent, really.
    what would a nuclear-armed state do in case of an attack? use nukes? but nukes are a taboo in war. where would they be used? for what purpose? military installations can be destroyed with conventional attacks easily, and hitting civilian targets with nukes would probably trigger international armed response on such a scale that the perpetrating state would capitulate in days.

    #429868

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    So, the idea of the sly Ukrainians is to blackmail the West in to financing our army and to blackmail the Moskals by threatening them with the ghost weapons. :)

    Yea I know, but I wanted to address the most inportant issue of the level, or quality if you want, of  Nationalism in Europe. The Svoboda MP belongs to a party that is defining itself as nationalist, isn't it? And this rhetoric of 'bad-quality nationalism' is not limited το any single country, rather it's a wide-spread phenomenon in Europe.

    I mean even the most naive can understand that, having Cs-137 dust being spread all over one's land, due to one's nuclear bombing of his neighbour, is not a very nationalistic thing to do.

    So the proponents of multi-culti and open-borderism use this kind of un-nationalist thinking to their own advantage. They say "behold the hypocrite nationalists, they want to destroy their neighbor's land hoping that theirs will remain intact!".

    The present situation in Europe is prohibitive not only of hatred or war-talk amongst E. countries, but even of anything other than talk of peace and co-operation. And this must begin in an informal way, among normal every-day europeans. Nazism, Communism, Capitalism and Euro-numerism have all failed. Only the best kind of Nationalism can save us from finding ourselves and our children inside one vast Syria.

    #429869

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    The present situation in Europe is prohibitive not only of hatred or war-talk amongst E. countries, but even of anything other than talk of peace and co-operation. And this must begin in an informal way, among normal every-day europeans. Nazism, Communism, Capitalism and Euro-numerism have all failed. Only the best kind of Nationalism can save us from finding ourselves and our children inside one vast Syria.

    I am not sure how can "best kind of Nationalism" save us? Just compare present day Europe that biggest problem is BDP and other first world problems compared to 19th century Nationalistic Europe with millions of European people dead in ww1, ww2 and bunch of smaller wars.

    Also i don't see that capitalism has failed anywhere yet? If so please point me to that direction. Even thought capitalism is pretty ruthless towards those that do not successfully compete (in economy/business), it's still the most natural system for civilization development. I mean i do not wish to defend capitalism as as if a care about it, but still rationally looking we don't have that much better alternative. 

    #429870

    Anonymous

    pENTAZ what you're saying, in Russia everything is calm, watching the news, not only Russian, but also other + Internet. Your European news – this statement is only one (correct) point of view.

    #429871

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    pENTAZ what you're saying, in Russia everything is calm, watching the news, not only Russian, but also other + Internet. Your European news – this statement is only one (correct) point of view.

    Do you actually think government would spread news about bad things they do? Obviously your national TV is also letting you see only one side of the story to keep the support of the general public to a military mobilization. I am also aware western media is having it's own propaganda in same time as well.

    I think one (we all) should probably watch both (Western and Eastern) sides news because the truth lies somewhere in between the two. Wouldn't you agree?

    #429872

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Do you actually think government would spread news about bad things they do? Obviously your national TV is also letting you see only one side of the story to keep the support of the general public to a military mobilization. I am also aware western media is having it's own propaganda in same time as well.

    Most of the main news channels in Russia are state owned. Maybe that's why they wouldn't report the bad news?

    #429873

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I am not sure how can "best kind of Nationalism" save us? Just compare present day Europe that biggest problem is BDP and other first world problems compared to 19th century Nationalistic Europe with millions of European people dead in ww1, ww2 and bunch of smaller wars.

    What is "BDP"? Do you mean GDP?

    The biggest problem of present day Europe… is that it is dying. The replacement fertility rate is 2,1 children per woman. World average (2014 CIA World Factbook list) is 2,60. European fertility rate average is 1,54 which in reality is even lower because England and France who top the european fertility list, owe their percentages largely to non-ethnic, immigrant populations. Low fertility rates plus high illegal immigration rates, means that Europeans are rapidly and forcibly being replaced by Asian and African populations.

    So Nationalism is responsible for the world wars? Don't you think the need to expand over to someone else's territory is rather about Chauvinism? Today in Greece we have 5.000 dead from suicides, is Nationalism responsible for that? Iraq counts 130.000 dead since the 2003 invasion, is Nationalism responsible for Halliburton, Bechtel, ExxonMobil etc? Syria counts another 130.000, is Nationalism responsible for Al Qaeda or the Academi? Is Nationalism responsible for the millions dead of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot?

    Quote:
    Also i don't see that capitalism has failed anywhere yet? If so please point me to that direction. Even thought capitalism is pretty ruthless towards those that do not successfully compete (in economy/business), it's still the most natural system for civilization development. I mean i do not wish to defend capitalism as as if a care about it, but still rationally looking we don't have that much better alternative.

    So you think that Capitalism is the most natural system for civilization development? But the European civilization didn't develop under Capitalism, did it. Your Slavic ancestors of the Migration period were not capitalists. The Medici over at Florence were not capitalists. The Samanids of Avicenna and the Almohads of Averroes were not capitalists. The Scandinavians, the Celts, the Romans, the Greeks, none of them were capitalists.

    Capitalism has failed because it is all about the accumulation of wealth to an ever-shrinking plutocracy. Capitalism is responsible for the spread of Monetarism and the consequent deconstruction of fundamental human conceptions, like Nationality. Frankly, the Chicago School is as much responsible for today's global Denationalization as the Frankfurt School.

    #429874

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Most of the main news channels in Russia are state owned. Maybe that's why they wouldn't report the bad news?

    When it comes to interests and agendas they are basically the same. I would say that state owned channels are even less likely to produce effective propaganda, so you can count more on them to make less of a fool of you. But then again, you do pay them with your money…

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

4 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Fia
  • jorgos
  • Tujev
  • kony97