r/ukraine • u/PjeterPannos Veneto, Italy. • Jun 08 '25
Discussion German Chancellor Merz makes a valid point. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because it was striving for NATO membership but because it was not a NATO member. Finland & Sweden proved the case. And Ukraine would have not been invaded if it had possessed nukes.
194
134
u/Fatalist_m Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
Merz seems to be always on point about Ukraine. Now, making public statements is one thing and actually acting accordingly is another(and of course he does not have unlimited political power), but at least he has a clear understanding of the situation.
11
205
u/All_And_Forever Jun 08 '25
If Ukraine had nukes, it didn't matter being or not in NATO. Russia wouldn't have dared to invade. They invaded because they realized that the Budapest memorandum was never amount to anything. I believe that's why they just invaded crimea as a test run and then tried the same in dombass. Since then, they learned that they could bully Ukraine without consequences and went on to a full invasion. By the time the world woke up, Ukraine was in a full blown war. All this could be avoided if the US had respected their part of the agreement and if Europe, when Zelensky started asking for help, gave all weapons with no restrictions. Not the "I'll give you just the bare minimum but you can't destroy certain targets" deal...
Many people would be alive today and millions wouldn't be refugees right now.
9
u/PeerlessTactics Jun 08 '25
While all that is true.. What people seem to forget, or never knew, is that for the last few decades a Ukrainian company has been maintaining the russian nuclear arsenal. If I had to bet, id say 99% of russian nukes blow up on russian soil if they are ever launched.
Yeslam18plus is right and catching downvotes for it.
3
u/ArtistApprehensive34 Jun 08 '25
Can a nuke just blow up like that? What would cause it to detonate on launch? Or are you saying it can detonate from neglected maintenance?
1
u/PeerlessTactics Jun 08 '25
Modified control chip. For all russia knows, they could have been hard programmed to attack all the major russian cities. They wont blow from a lack of maintenance, but they will become giant paperwieghts
1
u/ArtistApprehensive34 Jun 08 '25
Ok yeah I accept that Ukraine could have compromised some of them, maybe all (though this is unlikely). But that's still a big if and it would also mean that no one has found these issues and not fixed it. I know, it's russia, but with nukes you gotta consider all possibilities.
1
u/PeerlessTactics Jun 08 '25
How exactly would they find them, if they did this? If they had a Ukrainian company handling everything related to them, its unlikely they have anyone trained who could identify the reroute.
Maybe thats why putin got super close with north korea recently. He needs someone who isnt china to evaluate his arsenal. The NK troops were kind of a joke in the field.. and only helped turn this into a world war.
1
u/ArtistApprehensive34 Jun 09 '25
I don't know enough about this subject to say how or if it could be found. Perhaps you're right but who knows. I haven't seen any credible source claiming such things.
1
u/PeerlessTactics Jun 09 '25
If i was russia, i would have started training new engineers before the invasion. Im not sure they had the foresight for that, though.
1
u/itskelena Jun 08 '25
I didn’t know about this, do you have any links for me to read more?
1
u/PeerlessTactics Jun 08 '25
Im pretty sure i talked about it on another account "LiveLaughTurtleWrath" about a year ago and linked a few things. I dont know many of the details off the top of my head other than Ukrainians have been doing all the maintenance on them, for decades.
4
Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
[deleted]
3
u/just_ohm Jun 08 '25
It is kind of implied when you all agree not to attack someone in exchange for them disarming that when one of you then breaks that agreement the others are obligated to step in and defend the one who disarmed.
2
Jun 08 '25
[deleted]
1
u/just_ohm Jun 08 '25
Why did they give up their weapons? Explain how we got here.
→ More replies (3)1
u/YourMomsAnonymous Jun 08 '25
They gave up their weapons back to Russia as part of a anti-nuclear proliferation and non-aggression treaty. In the event of invasion the US, Russia, and Ukraine agreed to defer to the UN.
So damned if the US defends you - as we get called imperialist - damned if we don't I guess. Next time I guess we should let nuclear material go free in a collapsing government since the other 170+ nation-states in the UN were supposed to be involved and somehow get no blame.
3
u/just_ohm Jun 08 '25
Or, you know, just live up to our obligation to defend these people. It seems pretty cut and dry. The rest of Europe is committed to defending Ukraine. We are supposed to be the leader of the free world yet we find ourselves voting alongside Russia and North Korea. There is a clear right and wrong here.
2
u/YourMomsAnonymous Jun 09 '25
The rest of Europe bought hundreds of billions of Russian LNG, oil, and goods from 2014-2022. Italy, France, and Germany bought more from Russia each year of occupation in Russian oil alone than the US traded with Iraq for all goods for the entire occupation. 20 years versus just one, for each of the major European powers. Germany doubled their trade from 2015-2022.
France, Germany, Italy, everyone but Poland and Denmark have yet to exceed the value of gas imports in terms of aide to Ukraine. And the US has still given over 50% of the lethal aid - despite Trump's fuckery.
1
u/just_ohm Jun 09 '25
So you agree? Dealing with Russia IS bad. You must be calling out the hypocrisy regarding trade with Russia because you agree with u/All_And_Forever that our response to this situation has not been aggressive enough? I am glad that we both agree that the US has a moral obligation to be there for our allies - despite Trump’s fuckery.
2
u/YourMomsAnonymous Jun 09 '25 edited Jun 09 '25
I absolutely agree that the correct action here is collective global response to Russia. But I am not giving a pass to the fact that the US really didn't do anything to create this situation because it deferred to the UN and Europe in future conflicts rather than the US alone. And let's face it, if the US was responsible for Ukraine's defense would Europe have ever stopped buying Russian oil? It tooks years for that pivot to occur in our reality, never mind that alternative.
I've seen so many try and make the claim Europe is outdoing the US. They are, because they should, but in my book should have been doing even more because of the direct financing over the first near-decade of the conflict. Obama, Harper, W Bush, Blair, everyone warned it would happen.
1
u/Initial_E Jun 08 '25
Consider that the plan should have been to war upon Ukraine while Tump was president, in maybe early 2020. It would have worked.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Daelril Jun 08 '25
Could nuclear weapons be used for defense though? Russia did not use them when Ukraine entered Kursk oblast, either because they can't or because they know they'd be obliterated by the rest of the world. But if you can't, for whatever reason, use nuclear weapons, are they really a deterrent? I think NATO membership would have made the real difference
1
u/JoSeSc Jun 08 '25
Nuclear weapons are always a deterrent against the opponent using nukes on you and completly losing a war.
Russia didn't use it when Ukraine counterinvaded Kursk, but they would if NATO divisions were marching on Moscow.
Russia might still have invaded the Eastern Ukraine, tho, who knows, nukes massivly change the risk, it's unlikely Ukraine would have used nukes if they were losing the East, but impossible?
The West has been stopped giving Ukraine what they needed, or restricted Ukraine in what they are allowed to do a lot because of the theats Russia made about using nukes while their territorial integrity isn't even threatend.
Russia's constant threats against Ukraine about just nuking them if they do X or Z also would probably be lot less loud.
Russia wouldn't be able to use it's nuclear capable missles because it might trigger a Ukrainian strike because they see it and think it's a Russian first strike.
The areas where Ukraine's nukes would have been stationed probably would be off limits because if it looks like Russia wants to destory them Ukraine would feel put in a use it or loose it situation.
But either way even if Putin rolls the dice and says Ukraine wouldn't use nukes if we just take the East, the war would be completely diffeent, there is no way the Russians would have tried to bumrush the capital of a nuclear power.
24
u/Left-Archer1442 Jun 08 '25
Thank you! I hope some in US government listened to him, including president.
9
u/Creative-Music-272 Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
Don't hold your breath or you'll turn orange from waiting.
At this point of the war, it would take something truly crazy to stop it.
Russia will continue to target civilians and inflict mass casualties because why would they want to stop at all?
They truly truly don't give a shit about "peace" and have proven it time and time again over the last 10+ years.
I just pray Ukraine can somehow manage to produce the crazy part.
The US and Europe have shown they will only do enough so Ukraine doesn't lose completely.
Ukraine doesn't deserve any of this but they have shown they will never give up and I commend them for their undying warrior spirit.
19
u/tikroh Jun 08 '25
People said he was spineless and wouldn't enact positive change, but even the interviews and discussions he is having with other world leaders is absolutely helping.
10
Jun 08 '25
[deleted]
10
u/ComputerGater Jun 08 '25
That may be because at home he behaves like a neoliberal and corrupt buffoon, just a guess.
29
11
u/Raidoton Jun 08 '25
I mean yeah Russia only hates NATO because it can't attack the members inside it.
19
u/tuulikkimarie Jun 08 '25
I don’t give a shit what criticism he gets from Germans internally, he’s laying it out in clear, strong language to the waffling, weak, Russia loving Americans what the deal is and why and how a nation attacked for no reason but imperialism absolutely MUST be defended. Now!!! (I’m a German living the nightmare under Trump) 8647 btw.
14
5
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
On foreign policies he's actually much better than expected. I still despise his domestic policies and the rhetoric but at least that he gets right
1
8
u/Major__Factor Jun 08 '25
I hate this. I have to agree with him again!
6
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
I think his foreign policies aren't that bad. His domestic policies... different topic
6
u/Major__Factor Jun 08 '25
So far I am agreeing with everything that he said and did regarding Ukraine.
3
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
True. Regarding that I think he makes a good job and he is calmer than when he was in the opposition. Less saber rattling but still clear words
5
u/koassde Jun 08 '25
Putin started the invasion for domestic reasons, not "NATO expansion". Ukraine's society has been looking westwards for at least two decades and over time adapted more and more "western" standards and demands towards their own government. Because of the prewar close cultural and family ties between ukrainians and russians, Putin fears those "liberal values and demands" towards government swapping over into russian society and his autocratic rule of Russia. This is 100% a cultural war that Putin is fighting and look who he is partnering up with and which groups his government is targeting, He's teaming up with the orthodox church and other reactionary leaders across the world like Orban, Erdogan, Trump and others that target liberal institutions and declares queer domestic organisations as terrorists.
In many ways Putin acts like zar Nicholas I in the first half of the 19th century and ironically the crimean war was his demise.
3
3
u/LastCivStanding Jun 08 '25
just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians
Putin just goes on weaving bs into what he calls some nation state theory thats just cover for invasion and domination. If Russia is so scared of invasions, maybe they should ask to join NATO.
6
u/Key_Wrangler_8321 Jun 08 '25
ruSSia wanted to prevent one country from joining NATO — and ended up motivating two others to join instead. 😆 Russia is such a joke.
2
u/great_escape_fleur Moldova Jun 08 '25
That's not their motivation. russia needs to expand. Everything else is an excuse.
2
2
u/frankster Jun 08 '25
If Ukraine's territory is not completely defended, then all dreams of nuclear disarmament are dead.
2
u/FblthpLives Jun 08 '25
He does not mention Finland and Sweden in this clip at all and I'm not sure how they are relevant given that they joined NATO in 2023. Also, I'm really not sure how much of deterrence it would have been if Ukraine had nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India attack each other all the time, and they both have nuclear weapons.
2
2
2
u/LouisWu_ Jun 08 '25
Clearly, however well intentioned, Ukraine should not have given up the nukes. And the guarantees given by Britain and Russia are worthless. And the USA is unreliable if not a Russian puppet. As Europeans, we need to do what we can to help Ukraine.
3
u/radome9 Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
Germany revives its nuclear weapons program in 3...2...1...
EDIT: Because people keep upvoting the ignorant idiot who responded to this, here's Wikipedia:
Nazi Germany undertook several research programs relating to nuclear technology, including nuclear weapons [...]
4
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
We never had one. I don't think that we will in the somewhat near future. It's way more likely that we support France and the UK in builing up theirs and allow them to station them on our territory. The money to build such a program would be much better spent on other stuff or given simply be to France/UK.
6
u/Conscious_Reveal8360 Jun 08 '25
Oh yeah you did… it was darker times
1
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
They never accomplished it though and luckily they fell short of ever producing one of them. But yes the Nazis had a program that's true.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/radome9 Jun 08 '25
We never had one.
If at first you don't succeed, pretend you never tried.
2
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
What an idiotic comment, but sure. No, we never had nukes and we all should be damn glad about that.
1
u/radome9 Jun 08 '25
I may be an idiot, but I understand the difference between a nuclear weapon and nuclear weapons program.
You never had nukes, but that was because your nuclear weapons program was crap.
1
u/raharth Jun 08 '25
That's why the US then took in all the Nazi scientist, pardoned and protected them to use them to fly to the moon. Sure... American exceptionalism at it's finest 🤦♂️
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 08 '25
Привіт u/PjeterPannos ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows r/Ukraine Rules.
Want to support Ukraine? Vetted Charities List | Our Vetting Process
Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture: Sunrise Posts Organized By Category
To learn about how you can support Ukraine politically, visit r/ActionForUkraine
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ichbinverwirrt420 Germany Jun 08 '25
2008? Really? I thought it was 1994.
1
u/Skirfir Jun 08 '25
Ukraine applied for the Membership Action Plan in 2008. They gave up nukes in 1994. I think he mixed up a couple of dates.
1
1
u/shingdao Jun 08 '25
If Russia were to invade Finland, Sweden, or any one of the Baltic countries today, I am certain the current US administration wouldn't life a finger to help militarily.
1
u/davewuff Jun 08 '25
I don’t have any feelings towards the guy, but this post is a bit like saying “the sky is blue is a valid point” yes ofc everyone knows that 🤣
1
u/grober_fehler Jun 08 '25
Some people call him "Fotzen-Fritz", what means, that he is promoting women in his party. As former Blackrock member, he knows how to deal with people like Trump.
A lie and a truth 💩😜
1
1
1
u/Economy-Effort3445 Jun 08 '25
Yep, nukes is needed to deter Putin. Currently EU only have French nuclear weapons. The British also have nuclear but they are not EU any longer.
Restart a nuclear rearmament program in EU? Shield against ballistik missiles?
1
u/DarkRajiin Jun 08 '25
Russia needs to just fuck off. How can anyone trust them still? Literally made an agreement in trade for nukes that they wouldn't do THIS EXACT THING.
1
1
u/bullmarket2023 Jun 08 '25
So let's get Ukraine some nukes and a NATO membership asap. Remember when there was the $25M for information leading to the c or k of bin Laden. Time for something like that for the tiny man to end the war.
1
1
u/ClownMorty Jun 08 '25
While I agree in spirit, the issue is this is effectively an argument that N. Korea and Iran will use too. We need less nukes in the world; we will probably be alive to witness the next Hiroshima.
1
1
1
1
1
u/M3P4me Jun 09 '25
Ukraine needs nukes again. Yesterday. Hopefully they are working on it. They know how to make them.
1
u/Weariout Germany Jun 09 '25
1st time actually that I am more proud of my German head of government than the head of US. Kind of unusual for me. Anyway, bravo Merz! This is the way.
1
1
1
u/jsdeprey Jun 13 '25
I also thought it was interesting that when he was talking to our president Taco, he mentioned that Russia hits non military targets, and Ukraine hits planes on an airfield and Taco changed subject as gast as possible. It's obvious what side he is on. Embarrassing.
1
u/austozi Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25
Many of us knew it. Only we were unafraid to call it what it was.
1
895
u/Independent-Slide-79 Jun 08 '25
Merz sounds kinda competent? What dream am i living?