"A surprising discovery could also ease the administration's choice to send the weapons: The U.S. has found it has more ATACMS in its inventory than originally assessed, the two officials told ABC News."

Lmfao. I don't believe this at all, I know America's military is massive but you expect me to believe after months of concerns about "escalation" that they are suddenly now sending ATACMS because they casually found more down the back of the sofa? Lol.

Russia has threatened to nuke Ukraine and could still send a nuke powerplant into meltdown.

Ukraine's response to nuke threats is 'go for it, better to lose a city and have the US destroy the Russian military than lose the whole nation/have endless war'.

The US, Russia and UK agreed to protect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for giving up nukes. We failed on our side of the agreement so Ukraine has every right to pursue nukes.

Edit: 'proper' is to distinguish between occupied territories and Russia. I obviously know it's Ukrainian land but it's easier for sake of argument and there's no guarantee Ukraine will retake those lands

Opinion dismissed.

Russia has soldiers in Ukraine so nuking the frontlines would wipe out thousands of Russian soldiers too.

Ukraine's never said "go for it" in regards to nukes, Ukraine wouldn't use a nuke on their own soil either because they fully intend and expect on retaking all their land, all the way down to Crimea, it's useless if it's a smouldering pile of radioactive ash. You'd sooner see Ukraine use a nuke on Russia than its own soil. An act like that would pretty much result in Zelenskyy being dragged out of office and strung from the streets. There are thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines that would be slaughtered by a nuke.

Russia knows where the line is, they wouldn't dare to use a nuke on Ukraine soil. They will cause massive ecological damage by blowing a dam though and I consider that almost as bad but a nuke is out of the question, even China would be furious at them, once that pandora box is open it will be hard to close it, literally nobody wants nukes flying around the world.

I do agree that Ukraine has a right to pursue nukes on their own terms if they want to! But that's a conversation post-war. It's a shame but nukes are evidently a deterrent because of MAD and all that stuff. But I don't believe it would be a deterrent in the middle of a war, because I don't believe Ukraine would use them, and I believe Russia would know that too, because Russia has nukes as well, far more and far more powerful, it's a catch 22, nobody will dare to use nukes on another nuclear capable country because the nuclear capable country has nukes too.

As for Ukraine giving up nukes, I do agree that we should have stuck by and defended Ukraine more, however it would have made little difference if they still had those nukes for a number of reasons, number one is that Ukraine literally couldn't launch them, operational control of the nukes remained in Russia, Moscow had the codes needed to operate them, Russia had the command and control systems. The only way Ukraine could have got around this is by taking them completely apart and repurposes them for new weapons.

Secondly, Ukraine didn't have the technical ability nor the facilities to maintain the warheads. They lacked the ability and technical know how, they didn't have any experience in maintaining the warheads. Thirdly, many of the warheads were in crappy condition and needed replacing or were at the end of their life.

Ukraine wasn't in the best place financially, they had a huge financial burden of restructuring their entire country post-Soviet, including their military and infrastructure. They didn't have the money to maintain a nuclear programme or at least, not without severely cutting into other things. They never would have been able to maintain the weapons or produce new ones, they wouldn't have been able to use them, they made the best choice at the time which was to focus on rebuilding their country.

So I assume everyone has noticed the crossover between antivaxers, Covidiots, QAnoners, Trumpers, CO2 deniers and pro-Russia clowns?

What's the best way to reason with these guys?

Trolling doesn't work nor does calling them uninformed (they're well informed but from poor/lying sources). I used to argue with the CV folk all the time until I realised they or a close family member had a bad medical experience and they've never trusted doctors/the establishment ever since and the Alex Jones types use this as a vector to push every other political viewpoint.

Russia threatens nukes all the time, they've threatened UK with nukes, they've threatened America with nukes, it's boring now.

Do you have a source for that Ukraine quote? I'd be surprised if Ukraine basically said "yeah we're fine if Russia nukes us because America will wipe Russia out" - Also the USA likely wouldn't even do that, at most I would see countries just severely doubling down on military support to Ukraine, China joining in on the sanctions, NATO isn't going to get into a nuclear war for a non-NATO country is the brutal truth. At most if the nuclear radiation affects a NATO country we could maybe see strategic strikes on Russian places of missile launches but even that is a really unlikely stretch on my part (although if it did affect a NATO country then I would be support of strategic strikes on Russian airbases).

Not to downplay Bakhmut's destruction but there's a massive difference between Bakhmut's destruction via artillery fire and a nuke which practically wipes out absolutely everything in its path, not to mention the radiation causing the place to be uninhabitable for years, Bakhmut can and will be rebuilt and will be rebuilt without everyone wearing hazmat suits or developing cancer years down the line.

It really wouldn't be the end result, Ukraine would first have to create a nuke, they'd have to be able to store a nuke, this stuff takes years, they can't just secretly transfer a nuke from a NATO country either, it would be too obvious, Russia would know. And when in this hypothetical scenario, Ukraine uses a nuke on Russian soldiers, nobody will defend Ukraine when Russia launches 20 back and wipes Ukraine off the map. The end result isn't Russia's military doesn't exist anymore, to do that, Ukraine would have to nuke across the whole of Donestk Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Crimea and some targets in Russia and then Russia would fire back.

Ukraine is intercepting Kinzhal with Patriots but not every single Kinzhal is intercepted and Russia has hundreds, thousands of nukes. They'd only need a few to get through and make no mistake, more than a few would get through, dozens potentially. Ukraine would no longer exist. Ukraine would also be completely destroying a massive chunk of their land that they want to reclaim. Killing thousands of innocent Ukrainians that are still trapped in those areas. Killing thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines, poisoning the air in areas which Ukraine has already liberated, there are dozens of cities and villages that Ukraine has liberated which would be affected.

Russia would likely be invading because once again, the nukes were utterly useless and even if Ukraine figured out a way to maintain them, to financially keep them, they still couldn't have launched them, now if Ukraine had OTHER nukes that they could actually operate and were in a financial position to do so then that could have likely deterred Russia but fact is they didn't have the means, they didn't have the desire, they weren't in the position to do so. They don't explode but they do become useless and dangerous to keep around. You can't just bury a nuke in the ground and dig it up for later, Lol. They need to store that shit in extremely safe and protective environments, they need to maintain it, they need to be able to fire it.

And it's all useless because Russia would fire back! I understand the frustration but I don't think you're thinking this through at all, for Ukraine to use nukes first would be the end of Ukraine and an extremely pissed off public at Ukraine killing their own soldiers and people over land. Nobody would ever use a nuke on their own soil...It would be insane. I'll say again, if Zelenskyy pulled such a stunt then the Ukrainians would string his body up in the streets, it makes no sense.

Sounds more like you are dismissing realism in a bid to try to make your own unrealistic support scenario as anything believable.

The reality of the situation today is only a direct result of what I said in my statement. Would NATO had failed somewhere, Ukraine would already have fallen. Nato has been preparing them both in training and financing since 2014, absent of this Ukraine would not have been able to save itself in early 2022. 

Ever since the invasion occurred Nato supplies have enabled Ukraine to push Russia away from its capital and gain back territories. Enabled Ukrainians to shoot down 90%+ of air threats on a regular basis. Trained 10s of thousands of troops. Himars and now storm shadows, have decimated Russian bases, generals, ammunition depots, and logistics.

And, most important of all, NATO provided the means for Ukraine to do all this while preserving world stability that has grown so fragile by Russian reckless action. This cannot be understated. Russia has shown carelessness when it comes to setting the context for WWIII to occur. Don't blame NATO for caring, analyzing, and measuring their response extensively.

These people tend to be extremly proud. Attack their hubris by ridiculing them so much that nobody could take them seriously anymore. Kinda what Mel Brooks has been doing his whole career about Adolf Hitler...

Hope Ukraine finds a way to bring charges towards Musk post-war, not like America would extradite him but the message will be worth it.