The Pentagon has expressed no concern regarding the advance of Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, the Pentagon’s press service reports.

Source: European Pravda, citing Sabrina Singh, Deputy Spokesperson for the Pentagon

Details: “No, because at the end of the day, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereign territory that its neighbour invaded. So, if we want to de-escalate tensions, as we’ve said from the beginning, the best way to do that is Putin can make that decision today to withdraw troops from Ukraine,” Singh stated, when asked about the potential escalation of tensions due to Ukrainian forces entering Kursk Oblast

  • @Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    573 months ago

    Ukraine willingly dismantled its nuclear arsenal

    In exchange for assurances that Russia wouldn’t invade them. They won’t make that mistake again. And it’s not just me, NATO and organizations around the world have vouched for Ukraine’s continuing efforts to root out and remove corruption.

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      103 months ago

      There is the issue that at the time, Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal. Getting security agreements instead was a sensible thing to do, it just turns out that the ones they got weren’t strong enough

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
        link
        fedilink
        English
        93 months ago

        Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

        And Russia does? At least they’d have the “what if one of them still works” card that the Russians are playing.

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          53 months ago

          Russia’s GDP and GDP per capita have both been a lot higher than Ukraine’s in the entire post-Soviet period. Usually about two to three times higher per capita and five to ten times bigger overall. Post-Soviet Russia hasn’t been particularly prosperous, but it has a large population and oil money. It was definitely much more able to pay for it than Ukraine.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 months ago

            All I’m saying is that if they kept some, they could maintain some ambiguity whether they were maintaining them or not, potentially deterring the current invasion. It’s not like Russia has money to spare either, we’re taking them at their word that they have a functioning nuclear arsenal.

            With how the current invasion is going, I doubt that they know for certain. But let’s be honest, that uncertainty is the only thing keeping US F-22s out of Moscow’s skies right now.

            • Skua
              link
              fedilink
              33 months ago

              I agree it would have been better for them with the benefit of hindsight. My point is more that the decision that they did make was a pretty rational one at the time

              • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                Yeah, I get that and I agree. Everyone thought Russia will do what’s good for Russia, and not this.

        • @Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          Theoretically yes, although that would mean less yachts for oligarchs, so maybe some maintenance might be neglected or skipped

          • @CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            Not really, Russia spends about as much on its arsenal as the UK while having orders of magnitude more warheads to maintain. Either they have help from the magic nuclear maintenance faeries or only a small portion of their arsenal is still functional.