” Mearsheimer......Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia,”

 

まず前提が間違い。ウクライナに残っていたICBM用のMIRV核弾頭など独力での維持など出来る筈も無かった。ウクライナの核放棄は既定路線で、もし拒んでいたら国家体制は崩壊していた。ウクライナは核保有国ではない、ただソ連の核が残置されていたに過ぎない。　https://t.co/3ftky1y5u1

— JSF (@rockfish31) February 24, 2022

ひろゆきさんの反論としては、

１）ウクライナには核兵器を独力で維持できた。

２）かりにそのときなくても、後に核武装していれば今日の事態にはならなかった。

というのがありえるが、

 「ただソ連の核が残置されていたに過ぎない。」

ウィキなんかみるとそういうわけでもなさそうだけどねええ。

Nuclear weapons and Ukraine From Wikipedia, 

The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians

The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9] The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect.[9]

ニュアンスとしては困難はあったが技術的に不可能ではなかった。ただ、 

Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies.

欧米からの制裁されていただろう、と。それゆえ放棄しちゃったわけですね。

 In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the time.[8]

さすがミアシャイマー、今日の事態を１９９３年にすでに見越していたのか？

 The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent[1] retrieved 23/01/2022

President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a non-nuclear state is a mistake. 

 A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and notate, including the United States, is going to extend to it a mean ingful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. If the U.S. aim is to enhance stability in Europe, the case against a nuclear-armed Ukraine is unpersuasive.

核兵器なしにはロシアからの防衛はままならない、と。 

There is evidence to suggest, however, that Ukraine might have ultimate control over the bombers. Also, Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk has hinted that his country has the ability to fire its SS-24S, which were built in Ukraine. Finally, Kiev is developing a command and control system of its own that could be used to launch the weapons without Moscow's permission. 

技術的にも撃てるわけだ。

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE THE ANSWER

 

Nuclear weapons are a powerful force for peace because they are weapons of mass destruction. They create the possibility that in a war both sides will cease to exist as functioning societies. This cata strophic threat will foreclose any Russian thoughts of aggression against Ukraine since a defeated Ukraine could well use its nuclear weapons against Russia before going under. 

通常兵器も不足し、NATOもあてにならないとすればそれは核武装だわなああ。

ーーーコロナでもそうだったが、専門家っぽい人の意見もあまりあてにならんのでやっぱ自分で確認する必要があるね。

米軍べったり派の論者は見分けることができるようになった。