• ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they didn’t, then you’d still have 300,000 bodies to throw at them - not to mention openly breaking treaties isn’t a good look internationally - particularly if you’re trying to build a counter bloc or at least ensure neutrality

    • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ukraine shoulda kept those nukes, those are much better at protecting neutrality when you share a border with Russia. Educate yourself about the Budapest memorandum and maybe you’ll realize your hypocrisy. Why the sam hell do you think would Russia care about breaking internal law?

      • ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukraine didn’t have the ability to use them, except to take the radioactive material and put them into conventional weapons - which they could do anyway because of their nuclear industry.

          • ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, of course.

            Belarus would argue that the US broke their memorandum first with sanctions IIRC, Russia would argue that the 2014 revolution in Ukraine was in part due to US political interference, the US would argue that Russia broke it in Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022.