United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

If you want to know why people don't take the BBC seriously and have a bit more respect for the Russian position, it is because 60% of those arguments are just not taking a serious situation seriously.

Armies don't just charge out because Putin has his "dream", and certainly not sustaining the sort of punishment that the Russians have had to undergo in Ukraine. We can see from the response to Prigozhin's coup that the military actually supports the war to a significant extent; if it was unpopular then Putin would have been rolled by now. You aren't trying to understand the Russian motivation; this is unhelpful straw-manning and caricaturing.

And othering the Russians with irrational motivations is stupid. As a culture we've passed up too many opportunities to calm the situation down because of a russophobic attitude out of the US. Years of unhinged rhetoric from 2016 onwards turned out to be unhelpful in de-escalating a dangerous situation.

> Countries can be invaded even if they didn't "provoke" it...

I'm not going to quote specific parts but addressing the points you raise from this onwards - nearly nothing justifies war. But what does happen regularly is unfair war. The lesson out of something like the Afghanistan invasion in 2001 is if a major power tells you to do something you have about a month to comply before something unjustified happens and the faster the weak roll over the better it is for them.

If I can swallow that and stay friends with my US friends - which I can - then I can handle almost anything.

> At no point was Russia happy about the USSR member states leaving, and Putin has repeatedly stated that this is the "greatest geopolitical disaster of the last century".

That would be like the British PM lamenting the fall of the British empire. I don't see why believing that would lead to a war or even bad feelings. I do see why NATO expansion into Eastern Europe would though, especially given that with hindsight we know NATO sees Ukraine as an arena to inflict crippling losses on Russia. People in the Russian military probably have sleepless nights worrying about NATO.

And I note you didn't link to speeches by Putin. That'd be wise, it is rare to see a western media outlet accurately representing even western politicians. Not as a partisan thing, but as a blanket failure. It is better to go to the source material.

You are ridiculously overintellectualizing the situation by trying to construct a rational argument for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There isn't any more rational argument for it than there was for the German murder of Jews by the millions. Just a dictator with unhealthy obsessions in either case.

During WWII, Russia first allied with Germans and together they rolled over entire Europe until there was no-one else left and they attacked each other for the final deathmatch. Out of two bad choices, the US supported Russia with massive military aid against Germany. As an unintentional side-effect, that aid allowed Russia to prevent half of Europe from restoring their independence as Germans were defeated, and enabled Russians to dig in to dominate and exploit Central and Eastern Europe for 50 years. Entire generations of Russians, including Putin, grew up thinking that it was the norm. When the domination withered away, Russians saw that as a great humiliation and historic injustice that they are trying to reverse.

There's nothing more to it, really. All that huffing and puffing about NATO is only because NATO stands in the way. Drop the ambition of enslaving Europe again and NATO isn't an issue anymore. Russian complaints about NATO are best summed up as thieves complaining about neighbourhood watch.

The webpage that calculator is on is maintained by a nuclear industry market research company, UxC. UxC does not itself run enrichment facilities, but Urenco does, and here's a calculator provided by them [1]. The output of the calculator is separation work units (SWU), the standard unit used in the industry. The two calculators produce exactly the same result.

Urenco is a company that specializes in uranium enrichment. It is owned by the UK government (1/3), the Dutch government (1/3) and 2 German energy companies. They will not sell you weapons grade uranium, and if you don't have a legitimate reason, they will not sell you anything.

But if the UK or the US government asks them for weapons grade uranium for the purpose of making nuclear bombs, I imagine that they would be willing to provide.

As for Iran, they needed to build from scratch the many thousands of centrifuges, and they don't have any paying customer that could help recoup some of the cost. Plus, for a long time they needed to do the enrichment in a covert way, to hide it from the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Once they were caught enriching, they first got hit by Stuxnet then they got sanctioned. Then they did a deal with the US and some European countries, where they promised to stop the enrichment, which they did. They restarted when Trump withdrew from the deal, and now they have enough enriched uranium to make several bombs if they want.

[1] https://www.urenco.com/swu-calculator

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Putin is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of NATO, look at what NATO did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR.

It is just too easy to draw parallels between what is happening in Ukraine and what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan in the earlier part of the century. There is a lot of precedent for the globe standing aside and lodging strongly worded diplomatic protests to this sort of meaningless violence. The determination of NATO to do as much damage as they can to the Russian military is concerning; that isn't the sort of thing a group open to diplomatic solutions would do. With hindsight it seems likely that their policies of strategic pressure in Russia provoked the entire conflict.

> There's nothing more to it, really. All that huffing and puffing about NATO is only because NATO stands in the way.

If NATO wasn't involved it does seem likely that nobody would be talking about NATO's involvement.

If you want to argue that NATO should be involved then sure, that is a popular position. I'd disagree; the downside is large and the upside is hard to spot. But to argue that Russia isn't acting with reference to NATO's involvement is just displaying a void of strategic empathy. What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as NATO keeps tightening the noose on them.

> the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory

You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already.

UKRAINE DID NOT WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THEIR TERRITORY.

There was no path to Ukraine maintaining the nuclear weapons while also NOT having the Russian troops on Ukrainian land. The discussion of "oh, they can re-wire the weapons" would have trigged IMMEDIATE WAR with Russia. Ukraine DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS.

I really don't understand why you're bringing up any other information because what I've written is the start and the end of the discussion.