[basisword]

It’s politically complicated of course. But I don’t think our Western European governments have ever looked weaker. We can barely all agree on the right economic sanctions.

1. It may be a few days old but we stood by as Russia took Crimea years ago. We shouldn’t have allowed that in the first place.

2. Many counties have nukes. Ukraine had them and gave them up in exchange for security assurances from UK/US/Russia.

3. The UK gov is now saying if British citizens want to go and fight in Ukraine they support them. Maybe we should send some of the soldiers we’ve spent lots of taxpayer money training instead?

[krisoft]

> Ukraine had them and gave them up

That is a mistatement of facts. There were Russian troops controlling Russian nukes under Russian control on Ukrainan soil. Even if Ukraine somehow seized them they couldn’t have maintained them in the long run.

Saying that “Ukraine had nukes” is equivalent with saying that Belgium has nukes just because the US keeps some nuclear warheads in an airbase physically located in Belgium.

If you are interested in more I recommend this Arms Control Wonk podcast episode: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...

[NicoJuicy]

Ukraine gave them up, yes.

But a Russian allied governement was installed at that time ( the president then wasn't even born in Ukraine and was a member of the Communist Russian Party before).

It's Russia who broke that word and the West did react pretty quick. This could and probably will decimate the Russian economy and shorten the lifespan of the potential invasion significantly.

[Melio]

1. I agree we should have not allowed that.

But otherwise let's see how it plays out.

Currently the sanction level is not low. It's already surprising high. Totally different to Crimea.