Безотносительно. Но абсолютно точно.

[mdmx]

Ukraine is, to date, the only country in the world that has given up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.  It is also the only country in the world to be invaded by one of those guaranteeors, and also the only country in the world to have another one of those guaranteeors refuse to abide by their treay responsibilities.

Other countries are watching this, and weighing the value of developing nukes and retaining them, vs the value of negotiating away their nuclear armament.  And they overwhelmingly see that giving up nukes results in existential threats to their sovereignty and existence as a culture, and that the most powerful countries in the world are either doing the invasion, or standing by while it happens.

The conclusion is that if Ukrain falls, there will be significant increased nuclear proliferation as a result.  No one will, ever again give up so much as a single nuke.  And if nukes proliferate, they will eventually be used.

---
АПД. Ну и естественно дальше снежным комом:

1. https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2025/02/21/7205524/ У Конгрес США внесли проєкт про повний вихід з ООН

2. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-nato-2671184645/ «Я думаю, что это конец»: отставной генерал объявил о смерти ключевого альянса США

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

In any case. Besides, everybody remembers Kaddafi.

[dorimena]

в 1994 все еще верили россии ((

[chuka_lis]

да.

[lxe]

> they will eventually be used.

Nukes are overrated, but please do.

Not quite

[xobbit]

Belarus and Kazakhstan at least were, the former has re-nuclearised and the latter is still holding. Not sure was the South Africa given any guarantees though

[valerisha]

На случай если вы не в курсе, MSNBC это самая левацкая, антитрампистская помойка, переплюнувшая даже CNN. Я бы не стал к ним прислушиваться.