Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2926678] I just know very well how this all started, when this all started and most of all WHY it started.[/QUOTE]Yep. Putler wanted land, and industry, and minerals. Like Adolf. Although, Putler had to be smarter. In the very beginning, he had to trick the UA to dismantle its atomic weapons, by giving guarantees he never wanted to keep. Concerning the Red Lines, Putler was talking about so often, using as alibi for his imperialistic aggression: Any Red Lines of NATO for Russia, to put nuclear missiles into Kaliningrad? Missiles, capable to reach Berlin or Warsaw or Stockholm in very few minutes?

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2926686]I noticed a disturbing trend. You're now limiting your participation in this forum to posting one-sentence questions. Late Prigozhin would've hit you with a hammer for your lack of enthusiasm.[/QUOTE]Well, you seem to be avoiding answering it so I have to keep asking. Or do you not care how many Ukrainians are dying to keep track?

[QUOTE=ReinerOtto;2926694]Yep. Putler wanted land, and industry, and minerals. Like Adolf. Although, Putler had to be smarter. In the very beginning, he had to trick the UA to dismantle its atomic weapons, by giving guarantees he never wanted to keep. Concerning the Red Lines, Putler was talking about so often, using as alibi for his imperialistic aggression: Any Red Lines of NATO for Russia, to put nuclear missiles into Kaliningrad? Missiles, capable to reach Berlin or Warsaw or Stockholm in very few minutes?[/QUOTE]Those atomic weapons did not belong to Ukraine, they belonged to Russia. Russia had the codes. Ukraine just returned them to the rightful owner, you don't even know that.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2926819]Those atomic weapons did not belong to Ukraine, they belonged to Russia. Russia had the codes. Ukraine just returned them to the rightful owner, you don't even know that.[/QUOTE]The atomic weapons belonged to UA, because they were kept on their territory from the times of the USSR. Russia had the activation codes, yes. But that is / was not a mayor technical problem, in case of having good engineers, to remove the warheads from the SS18's, for example, and to remove the fission material for a new bomb. And later on, all the warheads were the bargain for the Budapest Memorandum, which was broken by Putler. Proof, that negotations and any agreements with him are not even worth intensively used toilet paper. Obviously, you are not good at facts.

Seems like Blackrock and others are calling time on Zelensky's scam. Time to pay back his Himalayan loans. He can always go back to his day job as a cross dressing male stripper.

Does it make sense to challenge a cannibal on fact finding with respect to keto diet? No, absolutely not.

As if an omen, all three major traitors of 1991 agreement with an exception of one croaked in 2022. As a witness at zero distance to 1987 agreement I can only repeat what is inconvenient to say officially, that two thieves and traitors contributed to the territorial disintegration of the country: a fingerless alcoholic Yeltsin and a marked mediocre tractor operator Gorbachev. Ukraine was created as an unallied country in 1991 or nine years before the first term of the current Russian president.

Nowadays, Ukraine socially is called country 404 - a non-existing mistake: financially, militarily and morally bankrupt.

Everything that Ukraine pledges today as a guarantee to its debts to foreign nations or corporations will be nationalized and returned to its owner. The people.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2926818]Well, you seem to be avoiding answering it so I have to keep asking. Or do you not care how many Ukrainians are dying to keep track?[/QUOTE]Every Ukrainian life is priceless but there will be infinitely more Ukrainian deaths if they give a snake named Putin a chance to rest, recharge, regroup and relaunch. Like I've said before, they don't have a choice.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2926819]Those atomic weapons did not belong to Ukraine, they belonged to Russia. Russia had the codes. Ukraine just returned them to the rightful owner, you don't even know that.[/QUOTE]They belonged to the Soviet Union, not Russia. Russia was just one of 15 nuke owners, you dummy.

[QUOTE=ReinerOtto;2926882]The atomic weapons belonged to UA, because they were kept on their territory from the times of the USSR. Russia had the activation codes, yes. But that is / was not a mayor technical problem, in case of having good engineers, to remove the warheads from the SS18's, for example, and to remove the fission material for a new bomb. And later on, all the warheads were the bargain for the Budapest Memorandum, which was broken by Putler. Proof, that negotations and any agreements with him are not even worth intensively used toilet paper. Obviously, you are not good at facts.[/QUOTE]They belonged to the Soviet Union and were legally the property of its successor state Russia. That's why Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan returned them to Russia. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2926935]Every Ukrainian life is priceless but there will be infinitely more Ukrainian deaths if they give a snake named Putin a chance to rest, recharge, regroup and relaunch. Like I've said before, they don't have a choice.

[/QUOTE]So you cannot answer. LOL.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2927041]They belonged to the Soviet Union and were legally the property of its successor state Russia. That's why Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan returned them to Russia. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.[/QUOTE]There's no reason to pull that out of your arse, the situation around the UA nukes is very well documented. No reason to make stuff up to get a bonus from the FSB.

"After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. At the time, Ukraine possessed the third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers.

However, these nuclear weapons were not under Ukrainian control in the operational sense. The launch codes and technical control remained with the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian government did not have full operational control over the nuclear arsenal on its territory.

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear weapons and joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon state. This decision was part of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. By 1996, Ukraine had successfully transferred all its nuclear weapons to Russia. ".

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2927041]They belonged to the Soviet Union and were legally the property of its successor state Russia. That's why Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan returned them to Russia. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.[/QUOTE]You can not stop to distribute misinformation. Is this your job, payed for by putler? Or did you just get it from rtdotcom?

Excerpt:

The Massandra Accords set the stage for the ultimately successful trilateral talks. As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14,1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads to Russia and accepted USA Assistance in dismantling missiles, bombers, and nuclear infrastructure. Ukraine's warheads would be dismantled in Russia, and Ukraine would receive compensation for the commercial value of the highly enriched uranium. Ukraine ratified START on February 3, 1994, repealing its earlier preconditions, but it would not accede to the NPT without further security assurances. .

Again, security assurances also from Russia here. One more proof of Putlers peeing on international agreements.

Ukraine agreed to transfere its nuclear warheads.

In case, you can still learn, and you are allowed to, just get the full story here:

[URL]https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons[/URL]#text=By%201996%2 C%20 Ukraine%20 had%20 returned, nuclear%20 Nonproliferation%20 Treaty%20 (NPT).

[QUOTE=VinDici;2927052]

However, these nuclear weapons were not under Ukrainian control in the operational sense. The launch codes and technical control remained with the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian government did not have full operational control over the nuclear arsenal on its territory.[/QUOTE]Thank you.

The nuclear weapons were not under Ukrainian control because they didn't belong to Ukraine and were just stationed there. The nuclear codes were with Russia because they belonged to Russia.

Just like America has nukes in Turkey. They don't belong to Turkey, they belong to the you. S, they have the nuclear codes. Similar to the nukes that were stationed in Kazakhstan and Belarus. They belonged to Russia and were returned to Russia by those 2 countries.

Russia has or is going to place nukes in Belarus. They will be Russian nukes that will just be stationed in Belarus. Amazing that is hard to understand for some here.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2927041]They belonged to the Soviet Union and were legally the property of its successor state Russia. That's why Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan returned them to Russia. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.[/QUOTE]They were not legally "the property of its successor state Russia. " Ukraine returned the nukes to Russia due to the intense US and Nato pressure -- mostly because Nato was and still is willing to sell their firstborn to limit the number of nuclear states. Furthermore, the nukes were returned only under the explicit Russian assurance of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Gee, what a bargain!

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2927271]Thank you.

The nuclear weapons were not under Ukrainian control because they didn't belong to Ukraine and were just stationed there. The nuclear codes were with Russia because they belonged to Russia.

Just like America has nukes in Turkey. They don't belong to Turkey, they belong to the you. S, they have the nuclear codes. Similar to the nukes that were stationed in Kazakhstan and Belarus. They belonged to Russia and were returned to Russia by those 2 countries.

Russia has or is going to place nukes in Belarus. They will be Russian nukes that will just be stationed in Belarus. Amazing that is hard to understand for some here.[/QUOTE]The US and Turkey are two different countries. Russia and Belarus today are also different countries (on paper at least). In the Soviet times, however, Russia and Ukraine weren't different countries. They were two republics that belonged to one country, the USSR. Again: The Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic did NOT controlled the nuclear codes in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that controlled the codes everywhere inside the state.

Then the USSR went Kaput. All former Soviet republics became independent states.

The 1991 treaty between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in Belovezhskaya Pushcha didn't discuss the ownership of Ukraine's nukes. In 1994, Ukrainian President Kravchuk was vehemently against transferring nuclear weapons to Russia. Interestingly, it was Bill Clinton who threatened and pushed him into submission. Hope he's proud of himself today.

But Clinton never tried to argue that Russia was somehow a legal nukes owner. Hell, Russia itself didn't try to claim it was a legal owner at the time. So again, who am I to tell you not to be an idiot? Go for it.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2926481]Not sure what you mean by keyboard warrior. You are on a mongering site trying your hardest to push Russian propaganda in the Ukraine forums. I think some introspection is needed.[/QUOTE]I fully agree. All those war promoters shall be kicked out from the forum. Most likely Trump aficionados.

Where is the mod to stop that bullshit?