Crimea would be realistic if the US didn’t hold back with their aid.
Europe too.
Next up: everything east of the Oder is Russia
Coming soon: Europe is rightful Russian territory
Realistically, if Ukraine only has to give up Crimea, it’s not a bad deal. I’m not saying I like it, just that getting 100% of the territory back may not be achievable.
Crimea is easier to take back than the dombass. Realistically, the dombass will be almost impossible to take back by force, but Crimea is a very realistic objective, although it’s also the most precious to russia.
Saying that Ukraine should forget about Crimea is saying that Ukraine should abandon all territories held by Russia today.
I don’t know, it could be, my experience in military strategy is summarized in having lost many times in the Europa Universalis. What I do understand a little more about is politics and international relations and I know that if Russia presented itself to negotiate with a deal that said “if you give me Crimea I won’t ask for anything else” Ukraine should accept without hesitation.
Russia won’t ask for this deal. This was what they had in 2014. Would they have not started the fu scale invasion, they would have Crimea still, and the West would still think Russia is reasonable. They started the war to get the dombass fully, to put a puppet on the government, and to make a safe zone around the sea.
What you’re suggesting would mean the war was entirely useless to russia, which I doubt they can afford to settle for.
Only if it gets 100% of Donbass. This Novorossiya shit needs to die
That is also gone.
I completely agree, I wanted to say if they ONLY give up Crimea and absolutely nothing else. Neither territory nor other things like NATO. Unfortunately, seeing the feedback from my previous comment, many see other better options as realistic, maybe they know more than me.
Trump would sell half of Ukraine to Russia and then leave them to fend for themselves
He still wants a Trump tower in Moscow
Disgusting bastards.
I have a suspicion that Trump is accelerating the plans for Ukraine to build nukes. They simply cannot wait for aid to slowly come in any more.
Do you think that is also plan B for Taiwan? My guess is they would be able to build a nuke as well
Taiwan has “nukes” they have missiles they claim can reach and breach the Three Gorges Dam. It’s like an environmentally friendly nuke!
I haven’t heard anything on that front but it would be a damn good idea for Taiwan.
That has always been Ukraine’s implied threat if aid stops. The fact it needs to be spelt out for the dummies is kinda sad. Ukraine has the technology, knowlege, material, and expertise to build one in 2 weeks (if they havnt already built one).
Who can build a nuclear weapon in two weeks? I’ve hunted for a source on this and can’t find one. Can you help a guy out?
All you need is a brilliant high school student with a knack for nuclear physics, a rebellious streak, and a desire to prove their intellectual superiority. As shown in the 1986 documentary, The Manhattan Project, even a resourceful teen can assemble a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks if they manage to access the right materials. Just look for someone with the right mix of ambition, genius, and a little disregard for the rules, and you’ll have yourself a homemade nuclear device in no time!
From scratch it’s obviously not feasible, but having been a former Soviet state I’d imagine a good majority of the resources needed are floating around.
The main challenges with nuclear weapons are 1. procurement of the fissile material, 2. yield efficiency, and 3. miniaturization. Once you have the first part done, as Ukraine very likely has the nuclear fuel processing facilities to do so, the second part is less important if you just want a bomb. Just look at the fact that they were so confident the Little Boy would work they didn’t even bother with a prototype, even if its yield ratio was quite low. It needed about 60kg of uranium for its 15kT yield, while Fat Man managed 21kT with only about 5kg of plutonium.
So, it’s a tradeoff where if nuclear material is hard to come by and you need to get the bomb somewhere far away, making something really efficient is pretty important. However, if you have sufficient material and just want a decently big boom in the middle of a field, it’s quite literally something you could feasibly manage in a home workshop.
The one other note on the importance of efficiency is in regards to fallout. Anything that isn’t used in the detonation is blasted every which-way, and isn’t really something you want as a normal military, since a nuclear wasteland isn’t strategically very useful. But, if you’re just trying to fuck up someone else’s day, then its less important and you can get into really “fun” stuff like dirty and cobalt bombs.
Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, basically any nation state with the money, materials, and knowledge to do it now that people outside Los Alamos know.
Dude a boy scout named David Hahn built a nuclear reactor and a neutron gun, it can be done.
I got a guy
Building a nuke is pretty easy. Just put 2 spheres of plutonium or enriched uranium at either end of a tube add a regular bomb on each end and duct tape it to the front of a regular missile.
Do they have the facility to enrich uranium, though?
Yeah they have nuclear fuel reprocessing
“Can we build this nuke in 2 weeks??? YES WE CAN!!!”
~~Bob the Builder.
Do it like the top secret Kursk Operation.
No. Crimea is Ukraine.
Maga republicans are russian puppets.
Healthy grass is green.
…what? Are we not just saying things that everybody already knows?
