The Last Hateman Argument
Freedom Party proposes to restore Ukraine’s nuclear status
The reason for the appearance of the scandalous project was the loss of the Crimea. The radicals from “Freedom” curse the “traitors of the nation”, who trusted the guarantor states, which, as now comes to the ukropatriots, took the nuclear warheads from the country, and did not vouch for its territorial integrity.
The Latin dictum of Ultima Ratio Regum was first widely used in the Thirty Years War, when Cardinal Richelieu ordered this phrase to be cast on gun barrels, meaning not the last resort to solve the problem, but the last word of the king, which should put an end to the conflict.
Somewhat later, on the orders of the Prussian emperor Frederick II, a slightly modified inscription was applied to all the guns of his army: Ultima ratio regis, already without diplomatic conventions, asserting gunpowder and lead as the last argument.
The twentieth century brought both the royal and democratic arguments to its highest point - the nuclear weapons, which could be the last not only figuratively, but also in the literal sense. A state that joined the "club" of the same holders of deadly missiles could count on a greater understanding of their needs and problems from both individual powers and the international community as a whole. The example of North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India, which became owners of nuclear warheads against the wishes of the rest of the world, confirms the importance of the “last argument” in implementing independent policies both within the country and in the global arena.
From this point of view, the collapse of the USSR was the moment of the collapse of nuclear ambitions (if any) for Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The status of a nuclear power remained with the Russian Federation. The rest, already former "nuclear" republics of the USSR, passed the corresponding disarmament procedure. The warheads that appeared on the territory of the newly created states were withdrawn and transported to the Russian Federation or disposed of on the spot. The same fate befell the means of delivery and launchers.
In 1994, Ukraine acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear state. However, despite the voluntary rejection of weapons of mass destruction, the question of the possibility of renewing nuclear status was periodically raised in radical political circles. Until recently, there were no convincing pretexts, but in the current situation the nationalists finally found a trump card that they would try to play for the world community. Perhaps the international community will not be shocked by this. Perhaps it will even bless the “nuclear club” in the hands of the Kiev regime with the condition that it will be applied only in one direction.
Certificate of merit instead of profits
After not playing the “Malaysian ace” - the deliberate destruction of a Malaysian Airlines plane - and failed to present the Russian Federation as a sponsor of “terrorism”, the radicals from the Verkhovna Rada decided to blackmail Russia from the other side. A draft resolution on the renewal of the nuclear status of a state is registered in the Ukrainian parliament.
The document is registered on the 20-th year since Ukraine abandoned nuclear weapons. This decision, as it turned out, continues to cast a shadow on the current domestic and foreign policy of the country. Ukraine assumed the corresponding obligations in November of 1994, when, after several years of intense internal discussions and international negotiations, the Verkhovna Rada ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Without going into the nuances of disputes at the start of 90's, it should be noted that by the time of making fundamental decisions, three consensus positions had formed in the country regarding the conditions for complete and fastest possible nuclear disarmament, as demanded by the USA, Europe and Russia. These were as follows: 1) obtaining security guarantees; 2) external funding for the elimination of nuclear warheads, delivery systems and infrastructure; 3) obtaining substantial compensation for fissile materials contained in tactical and strategic weapons located on the territory of Ukraine.
All items were formally executed. In the autumn of 1994, official members of the “nuclear club” —RF, USA, UK, France, and PRC — signed the Budapest Memorandum, sheets of paper with well-written text entitled “guarantees” in the Ukrainian translation (although diplomats and experts were well aware that assurance “Reassurance”). The signatories guaranteed the security of Ukraine in the face of a threat of military invasion of the state.
In June, the last 1996 strategic missile warheads were removed to Russia (tactical nuclear weapons were removed by the 1992 summer). By the year 1998 received compensation for fissile materials. By the beginning of the 2000-s, with the help of the USA, the delivery systems and infrastructure of the nuclear forces were eliminated.
In this regard, it can be noted that the “hetmanat” never received “live” money for the destruction of the arsenal. The money according to the American Nunn-Lugar program was used in accordance with the transatlantic understanding of the “joint threat reduction” that did not necessarily coincide with the Ukrainian one. Assistance has never been provided in the form of grants and loans, but only in the form of services, equipment, logistics and subcontracts. For the sake of justice, it is worth remembering that Kiev received substantial compensation for fissile materials from Moscow. And that would be impossible without the US-Russian contract for the conversion of highly enriched uranium. By the way, such a program for the Russian Federation is in effect and is unlikely to be suspended even if “sectoral sanctions” are imposed.
According to unofficial estimates by US military experts, military planning measures to counter the threat that Ukrainian nuclear ammunition posed to the US demanded from 10 to 30 billions of dollars annually. Russia, according to the statements of 90’s start, was ready to liquidate this arsenal for two to three billion dollars allocated by the Americans, to mutual pleasure. Kiev experts talked about 1,5 billion dollars to do it yourself. The United States managed a considerably more modest sum, acting primarily on its own. The Ukrainian authorities, in general, did not receive any special “geshefts”, which they apparently counted on. Moreover, part of the “joint” threat reduction program has become a headache for the Ukrainian authorities. At the Pavlograd Chemical Plant, the fuel stages of the RS-19 “Scalpel” MBR are still stored, which must be disposed of. Pragmatic Americans refused to finance a project for the conversion of solid rocket fuel and offered to simply burn it. The Ukrainian side refused this option, and the project fell on the shoulders of the state budget. So instead of the expected profits from disarmament, Kiev received only a “certificate of honor” in the form of praises from the United States and the European Union for the deliberate choice of a nuclear-free status.
True, the multi-vector nature of Ukrainian politics was not slow in affecting this seemingly long-resolved issue. Despite the fact that the statement on nuclear-free status was contained even in the Declaration of Independence of the country and was confirmed by the Verkhovna Rada's decree of 24 of October 1991, Kravchuk already in 1994 was bargaining with the Americans, vytsybyvany not only billions, but also guarantees from the US that America will view the attack on Ukraine as an attack on itself. Kravchuk personally broke Clinton. The result was the Trilateral Statement of Ukraine, Russia and the United States, signed in Moscow on 14 on January 1994 of the year, which seemed to solve the problem: the last Soviet warhead was removed in July on 1996.
For a long time, the “nuclear baton” for protection against the “curse of the Muscovites” has become the traditional fantasy of a part of the Ukrainian political. Patriots lamented the erroneousness of abandoning nuclear weapons in the period of aggravated political relations with Russia. It all boiled down to the fact that if then the "traitors of the nation" did not give the missiles to the "Moskals", now we would be afraid and respected. True, discussions of this kind were constantly repulsed by representatives of the overseas "regional committee". They reminded local politicians how the world applauded Ukraine for the conscious rejection of nuclear weapons, and offered to continue to be proud of their choice.
The logic of the terrorist
After the "enforcement of peace" Saakashvili in August 2008 for the time being there were no people willing to start a military conflict near the Russian borders. In 2014, followers of the US-Georgian strategist finally proved themselves to be among right-wing Ukrainian politicians.
The Svoboda Party has always been justifiably reproached for playing along with the Nazi ideology. Recently, a group of people's representatives from this organization proposed for the consideration of the deputy corps a document restoring the nuclear status of Ukraine. The initiators are the people's deputies Oleksiy Kayda, the deputy head of the faction of the All-Ukrainian Association “Freedom”, and his “partaigenossen” Oleksiy Furman, as well as members of the party - Markiyan Lopachak, Ruslan Martsinkiv, Anatoly Vitiv, Oleg Osuhovsky and Igor Sabiy. The draft resolution of the Verkhovna Rada on the renewal by Ukraine of the status of a nuclear power was registered on July 23.
The reason for the appearance of this scandalous document was, of course, the loss of the Crimea. Ukraine itself was not able to keep the peninsula in the state, relying on the “formidable” western partners and the Budapest Memorandum. To this agreement, the Ukrainian parliamentarians are still appealing.
To approve claims for nuclear status, right-wing radicals condescendingly give Russia full 10 days to stop “acts of aggression”, “return the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”, otherwise the other participating countries are obliged to “provide adequate military assistance.”
According to the authors of the document, such obligations derive, inter alia, from the status of the Russian Federation as a guarantor state, which 5 of December 1994 of the year signed the Budapest Memorandum. If the signatories do not carry out the necessary, in the opinion of the people's deputies of Freedom, the procedure begins to withdraw from the NPT, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is obliged to immediately adopt a state program for the country’s resumption of nuclear power status as the only effective mechanism to deter aggression from the Russian Federation and start relevant development. The accompanying note explains that the financial and economic justification does not require additional costs from the state budget and changes in other laws of Ukraine.
The “annexation” of Crimea and the financing of “terrorism” by Russia, according to the logic of the Svoboda, stem from its status as a state possessing an arsenal of nuclear weapons and, on the other hand, the absence of such status and weapons in Ukraine, which would be deterrent and sufficient to prevent acts of aggression. Currently, there is a high likelihood of the project’s “support” by the deputies. If the adoption of the law requires 226 votes, then the decision is enough 150.
Western partners of Ukraine have always strictly followed that even thoughts about the possibility of restoring the nuclear potential in the republic did not arise in the heads of Ukrainian politicians. As soon as the discussion rose to a more or less serious level, US official representatives did not forget to recall the impossibility of restoring a nuclear arsenal in the territory of the former USSR republic. But this time, the pause of Western partners was too long. Maybe they will not be so categorically against this time?
If Ukraine in the person of the Verkhovna Rada regains its nuclear status, the problem will develop further in the diplomatic and technical fields. From the first there is no complete clarity. It seems to be a blatant violation by the state of its own voluntary decision. Probably, there is a long discussion about how to resolve a legal conflict: the signatory of an international treaty refused to observe its nuclear-free status.
From a technical point of view, the problem of restoring nuclear potential, on the one hand, is solved, on the other - traditionally requires costs. And the state is leading the ATO. Here it is right to explode, but either defeat the terrorists, or come closer to the status of a terrorist state with a “nuclear club”.
Suppose Kiev chooses to restore a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, the affairs of the pro-government forces in the east of Ukraine are moving towards defeat.
If you take care of the “nuclear baton” handicraft, you need materials for warheads, delivery systems and specialists who will do all this at the expense of the state budget. As for the scope, even here the last maydanschik knows where to target the missiles. The main thing is to fly, good, not very far.
Ukraine has all the scientific and technological capabilities to create its own bombs. In extreme cases, you can pretend that you have mastered yourself, but in reality it will be a small “lend-lease”. It is even more profitable, because arms control remains with the one who helped the Kiev regime with it. Especially since it will probably be about the number of charges not more than 10 units. The maintenance of nuclear weapons is expensive, but even for this individual international players can allocate the necessary finances.
The remains of weapons-grade uranium, which was stored at the Kharkov Scientific Research Institute for scientific work, were transferred to the US by the “gangster” Yanukovych back in 2012 year. Actually, after this, the process of European integration accelerated sharply. But at the same time, the cursory president actually deprived the patriots of a chance to quickly, in a couple of months, to rivet the nuclear warhead “To Moscow!”.
There are no carriers in Ukraine either. Theoretically, they can be ordered at Yuzhmash. Or, to get from the arsenals the decommissioned ballistic missiles "Tochka-U" and try to hang a nuclear warhead on them.
In late July, the American media "highlighted" the incomprehensible history with the launch by the Ukrainian military of short-range ballistic missiles (presumably "Point-U"), which Saur-Grave was trying to fire at, strategic heights. The speakers of the official Kiev traditionally deny this possibility. So, the “Martians” shoot - neither the rebels nor the Russian troops have such an “artifact” as the old Soviet “Point” ...
Kiev’s denial of obvious things indicates the absence of any moral restrictions in the civil war. “Grad” civilians are bombarded daily, why not use weapons of mass destruction? After all, the end justifies the means.
And in this regard, the process of revising the decision on the nuclear-free status of Ukraine acquires a completely different dimension. Kiev is already the third month ruthlessly exterminating its own citizens with the complete non-interference of the so-called democratic world - the European Union and the United States. Innocent people are dying from artillery shelling, but even the UN pretends that nothing happens in the Donbas. The world community is not at all worried about the extermination of the population in the regime of total violation of basic human rights. Why then should Kiev not shoot at the neighboring territories with nuclear warheads? After all, Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in response. And the United States cannot but support the struggle of the Poroshenko regime with the eastern “aggressor”.
In the current political situation, the games of the Ukrainian patriots in the “nuclear state” are only innocent in appearance. Kiev has already felt complete impunity for the punitive operation in the Donbas, so the possibility of using a new class of weapons in this civil war is acquiring an ominous reality.
If Ukraine regains its nuclear status and tries to acquire at least tactical missiles, there is no doubt which way they will be turned. Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the high Kiev offices have already prepared a sweep to the last civilian, and some of the environmental threats and other humanitarian nonsense in the form of responsibility for the lives of people and the future of the country are not worried about the current Hetman. After all, if anything, they will live in London (Washington, Riga, Warsaw).
In general, in the task of drawing Russia into an exchange of nuclear strikes or to inflict maximum damage on the border areas of the Russian Federation, coupled with the Donbas, everything depends only on the required time for this decision. The rest neither Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, nor the radicals from “Freedom” by itself does not bother at all, because they will not get anything for it anyway. Neither censure, nor punishment, nor the sanctions of the Nazis do not bother at all, especially since they do not intend to answer for anything.
The reason for the appearance of the scandalous project was the loss of the Crimea. The radicals from “Freedom” curse the “traitors of the nation”, who trusted the guarantor states, which, as now comes to the ukropatriots, took the nuclear warheads from the country, and did not vouch for its territorial integrity.
The Latin dictum of Ultima Ratio Regum was first widely used in the Thirty Years War, when Cardinal Richelieu ordered this phrase to be cast on gun barrels, meaning not the last resort to solve the problem, but the last word of the king, which should put an end to the conflict.
Somewhat later, on the orders of the Prussian emperor Frederick II, a slightly modified inscription was applied to all the guns of his army: Ultima ratio regis, already without diplomatic conventions, asserting gunpowder and lead as the last argument.
The twentieth century brought both the royal and democratic arguments to its highest point - the nuclear weapons, which could be the last not only figuratively, but also in the literal sense. A state that joined the "club" of the same holders of deadly missiles could count on a greater understanding of their needs and problems from both individual powers and the international community as a whole. The example of North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India, which became owners of nuclear warheads against the wishes of the rest of the world, confirms the importance of the “last argument” in implementing independent policies both within the country and in the global arena.
From this point of view, the collapse of the USSR was the moment of the collapse of nuclear ambitions (if any) for Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The status of a nuclear power remained with the Russian Federation. The rest, already former "nuclear" republics of the USSR, passed the corresponding disarmament procedure. The warheads that appeared on the territory of the newly created states were withdrawn and transported to the Russian Federation or disposed of on the spot. The same fate befell the means of delivery and launchers.
In 1994, Ukraine acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear state. However, despite the voluntary rejection of weapons of mass destruction, the question of the possibility of renewing nuclear status was periodically raised in radical political circles. Until recently, there were no convincing pretexts, but in the current situation the nationalists finally found a trump card that they would try to play for the world community. Perhaps the international community will not be shocked by this. Perhaps it will even bless the “nuclear club” in the hands of the Kiev regime with the condition that it will be applied only in one direction.
Certificate of merit instead of profits
After not playing the “Malaysian ace” - the deliberate destruction of a Malaysian Airlines plane - and failed to present the Russian Federation as a sponsor of “terrorism”, the radicals from the Verkhovna Rada decided to blackmail Russia from the other side. A draft resolution on the renewal of the nuclear status of a state is registered in the Ukrainian parliament.
The document is registered on the 20-th year since Ukraine abandoned nuclear weapons. This decision, as it turned out, continues to cast a shadow on the current domestic and foreign policy of the country. Ukraine assumed the corresponding obligations in November of 1994, when, after several years of intense internal discussions and international negotiations, the Verkhovna Rada ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Without going into the nuances of disputes at the start of 90's, it should be noted that by the time of making fundamental decisions, three consensus positions had formed in the country regarding the conditions for complete and fastest possible nuclear disarmament, as demanded by the USA, Europe and Russia. These were as follows: 1) obtaining security guarantees; 2) external funding for the elimination of nuclear warheads, delivery systems and infrastructure; 3) obtaining substantial compensation for fissile materials contained in tactical and strategic weapons located on the territory of Ukraine.All items were formally executed. In the autumn of 1994, official members of the “nuclear club” —RF, USA, UK, France, and PRC — signed the Budapest Memorandum, sheets of paper with well-written text entitled “guarantees” in the Ukrainian translation (although diplomats and experts were well aware that assurance “Reassurance”). The signatories guaranteed the security of Ukraine in the face of a threat of military invasion of the state.
In June, the last 1996 strategic missile warheads were removed to Russia (tactical nuclear weapons were removed by the 1992 summer). By the year 1998 received compensation for fissile materials. By the beginning of the 2000-s, with the help of the USA, the delivery systems and infrastructure of the nuclear forces were eliminated.
In this regard, it can be noted that the “hetmanat” never received “live” money for the destruction of the arsenal. The money according to the American Nunn-Lugar program was used in accordance with the transatlantic understanding of the “joint threat reduction” that did not necessarily coincide with the Ukrainian one. Assistance has never been provided in the form of grants and loans, but only in the form of services, equipment, logistics and subcontracts. For the sake of justice, it is worth remembering that Kiev received substantial compensation for fissile materials from Moscow. And that would be impossible without the US-Russian contract for the conversion of highly enriched uranium. By the way, such a program for the Russian Federation is in effect and is unlikely to be suspended even if “sectoral sanctions” are imposed.
According to unofficial estimates by US military experts, military planning measures to counter the threat that Ukrainian nuclear ammunition posed to the US demanded from 10 to 30 billions of dollars annually. Russia, according to the statements of 90’s start, was ready to liquidate this arsenal for two to three billion dollars allocated by the Americans, to mutual pleasure. Kiev experts talked about 1,5 billion dollars to do it yourself. The United States managed a considerably more modest sum, acting primarily on its own. The Ukrainian authorities, in general, did not receive any special “geshefts”, which they apparently counted on. Moreover, part of the “joint” threat reduction program has become a headache for the Ukrainian authorities. At the Pavlograd Chemical Plant, the fuel stages of the RS-19 “Scalpel” MBR are still stored, which must be disposed of. Pragmatic Americans refused to finance a project for the conversion of solid rocket fuel and offered to simply burn it. The Ukrainian side refused this option, and the project fell on the shoulders of the state budget. So instead of the expected profits from disarmament, Kiev received only a “certificate of honor” in the form of praises from the United States and the European Union for the deliberate choice of a nuclear-free status.
True, the multi-vector nature of Ukrainian politics was not slow in affecting this seemingly long-resolved issue. Despite the fact that the statement on nuclear-free status was contained even in the Declaration of Independence of the country and was confirmed by the Verkhovna Rada's decree of 24 of October 1991, Kravchuk already in 1994 was bargaining with the Americans, vytsybyvany not only billions, but also guarantees from the US that America will view the attack on Ukraine as an attack on itself. Kravchuk personally broke Clinton. The result was the Trilateral Statement of Ukraine, Russia and the United States, signed in Moscow on 14 on January 1994 of the year, which seemed to solve the problem: the last Soviet warhead was removed in July on 1996.
For a long time, the “nuclear baton” for protection against the “curse of the Muscovites” has become the traditional fantasy of a part of the Ukrainian political. Patriots lamented the erroneousness of abandoning nuclear weapons in the period of aggravated political relations with Russia. It all boiled down to the fact that if then the "traitors of the nation" did not give the missiles to the "Moskals", now we would be afraid and respected. True, discussions of this kind were constantly repulsed by representatives of the overseas "regional committee". They reminded local politicians how the world applauded Ukraine for the conscious rejection of nuclear weapons, and offered to continue to be proud of their choice.
The logic of the terrorist
After the "enforcement of peace" Saakashvili in August 2008 for the time being there were no people willing to start a military conflict near the Russian borders. In 2014, followers of the US-Georgian strategist finally proved themselves to be among right-wing Ukrainian politicians.
The Svoboda Party has always been justifiably reproached for playing along with the Nazi ideology. Recently, a group of people's representatives from this organization proposed for the consideration of the deputy corps a document restoring the nuclear status of Ukraine. The initiators are the people's deputies Oleksiy Kayda, the deputy head of the faction of the All-Ukrainian Association “Freedom”, and his “partaigenossen” Oleksiy Furman, as well as members of the party - Markiyan Lopachak, Ruslan Martsinkiv, Anatoly Vitiv, Oleg Osuhovsky and Igor Sabiy. The draft resolution of the Verkhovna Rada on the renewal by Ukraine of the status of a nuclear power was registered on July 23.
The reason for the appearance of this scandalous document was, of course, the loss of the Crimea. Ukraine itself was not able to keep the peninsula in the state, relying on the “formidable” western partners and the Budapest Memorandum. To this agreement, the Ukrainian parliamentarians are still appealing.
To approve claims for nuclear status, right-wing radicals condescendingly give Russia full 10 days to stop “acts of aggression”, “return the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”, otherwise the other participating countries are obliged to “provide adequate military assistance.”
According to the authors of the document, such obligations derive, inter alia, from the status of the Russian Federation as a guarantor state, which 5 of December 1994 of the year signed the Budapest Memorandum. If the signatories do not carry out the necessary, in the opinion of the people's deputies of Freedom, the procedure begins to withdraw from the NPT, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is obliged to immediately adopt a state program for the country’s resumption of nuclear power status as the only effective mechanism to deter aggression from the Russian Federation and start relevant development. The accompanying note explains that the financial and economic justification does not require additional costs from the state budget and changes in other laws of Ukraine.
The “annexation” of Crimea and the financing of “terrorism” by Russia, according to the logic of the Svoboda, stem from its status as a state possessing an arsenal of nuclear weapons and, on the other hand, the absence of such status and weapons in Ukraine, which would be deterrent and sufficient to prevent acts of aggression. Currently, there is a high likelihood of the project’s “support” by the deputies. If the adoption of the law requires 226 votes, then the decision is enough 150.
Western partners of Ukraine have always strictly followed that even thoughts about the possibility of restoring the nuclear potential in the republic did not arise in the heads of Ukrainian politicians. As soon as the discussion rose to a more or less serious level, US official representatives did not forget to recall the impossibility of restoring a nuclear arsenal in the territory of the former USSR republic. But this time, the pause of Western partners was too long. Maybe they will not be so categorically against this time?
If Ukraine in the person of the Verkhovna Rada regains its nuclear status, the problem will develop further in the diplomatic and technical fields. From the first there is no complete clarity. It seems to be a blatant violation by the state of its own voluntary decision. Probably, there is a long discussion about how to resolve a legal conflict: the signatory of an international treaty refused to observe its nuclear-free status.
From a technical point of view, the problem of restoring nuclear potential, on the one hand, is solved, on the other - traditionally requires costs. And the state is leading the ATO. Here it is right to explode, but either defeat the terrorists, or come closer to the status of a terrorist state with a “nuclear club”.
Suppose Kiev chooses to restore a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, the affairs of the pro-government forces in the east of Ukraine are moving towards defeat.
If you take care of the “nuclear baton” handicraft, you need materials for warheads, delivery systems and specialists who will do all this at the expense of the state budget. As for the scope, even here the last maydanschik knows where to target the missiles. The main thing is to fly, good, not very far.
Ukraine has all the scientific and technological capabilities to create its own bombs. In extreme cases, you can pretend that you have mastered yourself, but in reality it will be a small “lend-lease”. It is even more profitable, because arms control remains with the one who helped the Kiev regime with it. Especially since it will probably be about the number of charges not more than 10 units. The maintenance of nuclear weapons is expensive, but even for this individual international players can allocate the necessary finances.
The remains of weapons-grade uranium, which was stored at the Kharkov Scientific Research Institute for scientific work, were transferred to the US by the “gangster” Yanukovych back in 2012 year. Actually, after this, the process of European integration accelerated sharply. But at the same time, the cursory president actually deprived the patriots of a chance to quickly, in a couple of months, to rivet the nuclear warhead “To Moscow!”.
There are no carriers in Ukraine either. Theoretically, they can be ordered at Yuzhmash. Or, to get from the arsenals the decommissioned ballistic missiles "Tochka-U" and try to hang a nuclear warhead on them.
In late July, the American media "highlighted" the incomprehensible history with the launch by the Ukrainian military of short-range ballistic missiles (presumably "Point-U"), which Saur-Grave was trying to fire at, strategic heights. The speakers of the official Kiev traditionally deny this possibility. So, the “Martians” shoot - neither the rebels nor the Russian troops have such an “artifact” as the old Soviet “Point” ...
Kiev’s denial of obvious things indicates the absence of any moral restrictions in the civil war. “Grad” civilians are bombarded daily, why not use weapons of mass destruction? After all, the end justifies the means.
And in this regard, the process of revising the decision on the nuclear-free status of Ukraine acquires a completely different dimension. Kiev is already the third month ruthlessly exterminating its own citizens with the complete non-interference of the so-called democratic world - the European Union and the United States. Innocent people are dying from artillery shelling, but even the UN pretends that nothing happens in the Donbas. The world community is not at all worried about the extermination of the population in the regime of total violation of basic human rights. Why then should Kiev not shoot at the neighboring territories with nuclear warheads? After all, Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in response. And the United States cannot but support the struggle of the Poroshenko regime with the eastern “aggressor”.
In the current political situation, the games of the Ukrainian patriots in the “nuclear state” are only innocent in appearance. Kiev has already felt complete impunity for the punitive operation in the Donbas, so the possibility of using a new class of weapons in this civil war is acquiring an ominous reality.
If Ukraine regains its nuclear status and tries to acquire at least tactical missiles, there is no doubt which way they will be turned. Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the high Kiev offices have already prepared a sweep to the last civilian, and some of the environmental threats and other humanitarian nonsense in the form of responsibility for the lives of people and the future of the country are not worried about the current Hetman. After all, if anything, they will live in London (Washington, Riga, Warsaw).
In general, in the task of drawing Russia into an exchange of nuclear strikes or to inflict maximum damage on the border areas of the Russian Federation, coupled with the Donbas, everything depends only on the required time for this decision. The rest neither Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, nor the radicals from “Freedom” by itself does not bother at all, because they will not get anything for it anyway. Neither censure, nor punishment, nor the sanctions of the Nazis do not bother at all, especially since they do not intend to answer for anything.
Information