Proof is apparent evidence. 'Connecting the dots' is assumption, and a poor one at that if it doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

Has nato placed more nuke bases since the end of the cold war and addition of new members? No, so your assumption of 'nuclear-sharing' and 'core component' entailing nuke bases in ukraine falls flat. If it were true, latvia, estonia would all have nuke bases already.

Latvia, estonia, sweden etc joined nato without seeking to have nukes placed in their territory. Heck, you dont even need to put nukes in your country to have it benefit from the nato's "nuclear deterrence" - which makes your assumption of nato putting nukes in ukraone as the only conclusion sound even more uneducated.

So yeah, tell us - where in that page you shared does it say nato plans to put nukes in ukraine.

Anerica is just a proxy of MIGA if you dunno yet. So obviously they want this 10 million bounty Al Qaeda leader to become leader in Syria lah.

Why salahkan America? You see what happened to JFK if you double cross them?

Hahaha, this is fun, thanks for playing.

https://www.politico.eu/article/give-ukrain...ymyr-zelenskyy/

Guy doesnt even read his own article - ukraine asked to get either nato membership or nukes if they cant get membership.

Kesian this zelensky.... still don't want to admit he doesn't have many cards left to play (at the same time, they has celebration coz hitting some russian tankers in black sea).

Meanwhile, some naughty polar bear has an idea on taking Odessa

So where your sos normal / standard protective suit does not protect from depleted uranium ammunition?

Until now u cannot find one that fits ur narrative issit?