Tactical nuclear weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield by specialized troops. That is quite different than strategic nuclear weapons

>Why can't China stand on Ukraine's side?

Because China benefits if Russia and NATO countries waste money and resources fighting one another. Most of the world outside Europe view the war as a local one, and there's little appetite to go out on a limb for Ukraine.

Moral arguments tend to ring hollow in many ears when western military aggression in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America have been going on for decades.

Even putting aside the ravages of colonialism, the IMF and World Bank have their own disastrous records in Africa creating export and debt traps that have devastated nations.

It's paternalistic to imply that an entire continent is naive rather than making informed choices.

I think you have your cause and effect reversed. It was the countries in Europe that colonized and exploited Africa. Russian and Chinese involvement in Africa (and the Global South in general) was a response to Western exploitation and colonization.

The USSR / Russia have goodwill because they helped Africans expel the colonizers. Mozambique even put the AK-47 on its flag! By no means were the Soviets acting out of benevolence, but nonetheless there is goodwill towards Russia that continues today.

China also has been investing heavily in Africa, and providing developmental aid with more favorable terms, lower interest rates, and often fewer restrictions than Western aid. Again, it's not out of benevolence but it does engender good will towards China.

They still have to transship through another country, because they don't have access to the ocean - and it's not as if they're surrounded by stable or western friendly countries. Plus Kazakhstan traditionally has quite strong relations with Russia, though it should be noted Kazakhstan is supporting Ukraine.

Regardless, the world's largest enrichment facilities are in Russia. They are expensive and take many years to build - the US only has one enrichment facility itself. For the foreseeable future, Russia is a major player with nuclear power generation.

The easiest and most effective way. That's all OPEC really does - it's easier to manage supply than it is demand.

I don't think it's that easy. Russia enriches more than half of the world's uranium and today exports 15% of the US' total uranium purchases. The world's largest producer (Kazakhstan) is a landlocked former Soviet state that moves its uranium through Russia's borders.

Russia also builds and maintains most of the world's nuclear plants.

It's an important distinction. If Russia views Israel as attempting to impede Russian actions in Ukraine, then it's highly likely Russia will become much more aggressive in taking action against Israeli strikes in Syria that are aimed at disrupting Iranian weapons transfers to terrorists and hostile militias.

International Institute for Strategic Studies, as shown on Wikipedia, including paramilitary personnel like the Worker-Peasant Red Guards.

Is China more developed than Switzerland? Japan? Norway? Is North Korea more developed than South Korea?

Military size or nuclear weapons aren't the standard for a developed vs developing country for a reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

North Korea has a larger military than China. North Korea is a nuclear power. Where do you rank them?

Exactly. If my partner and I make $200K / year, we can live comfortably in most places in the US. If we have eight children to support on that $200K / year, we would struggle: the rent increase alone would be ruinous, not to mention food, clothing, and medical costs.

For the US to have GDP per capita similar to China, the US population would have to swell to more than 1.5B people - five times its current population.

China's GDP per capita is $12.5K / year and places it in between Panama and Costa Rica; India is $2.3K / year and is in between Congo and Mauritania.

How are they not developing nations?

The primary reason why the West so heavily outsources work and industry to India and China is to take advantage of how cheap the labor is to developed nations.

The US paid nothing to Iraq or Vietnam. Neither Russia nor the US paid anything to Afghanistan.

The only time I can think an aggressor country was forced to pay reparations - post WW2 - was Iraq paying compensation to Kuwait. Given that was the result of a UN Security Council Resolution, I wouldn't count on Russia paying Ukraine a single ruble.

North Korea was a major regional threat before they developed nuclear weapons and started testing their longer range, advanced missiles.

With artillery and mortars alone, North Korea could easily inflict over a hundred thousand South Korean casualties and cause billions of dollars in damages - within hours.

>India gains nothing long term...

They save billions of dollars of USD equivalent every month - that's a lot more important to India than Russia's claims on Ukraine.

You expect the US - who is the world's largest producer of oil and gas, and the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases - to go to war to be an environmental savior?

3/4 of all species are at risk; may as throw another one atop the pile!