3 ms·

> … when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak … it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. NATO is not required for the Ukraine. Under the B

> … when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak … it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. NATO is not required for the Ukraine. Under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, 1994 - the USA, UK, and others committed to defend the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for them giving up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal. Then you didn't. Why would NATO be different - under an actual peer-level invasion?

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Ukraine had the 3rd largest global nuclear arsenal? Presumably inherited from USSR?
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Yes. In a moment of touching naiveté they agreed to give it all up and accept the word of other nuclear powers (who got to keep their nukes) that they could rely on said others for protection. One invaded them and the others had a sudden case of acute testicular fortitude failure. Unsuprisingly, South Africa politely refused Obama's repeated, kind-hearted offers to let the USA take their weapons-grade uranium in exchange for (wait for it) a whopping $5 million worth of nuclear fuel. A lesson to all.
  - gdy 7y ago
    "In a moment of touching naiveté" Maintaining nuclear arsenal is quite expensive. The Ukrainian elites at that time thought they were just being extremely clever by getting 'guaranteed' security without paying for it. Their successors were dumb enough to threaten Russia's own security by inviting NATO to expand to the Ukraine.
- hn23 7y ago
  They also produced lots of military goods for Russia. Thus it was no good idea trying to bring them into EU and as second step into NATO. They could have been a perfect neutral state serving both sides. But every side wanted their own oligarch.
antientropic 7y ago
The Budapest Memorandum contains no such commitment (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi...). It states the parties' commitment "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", not to go to war if others violate those.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Ukraine had the 3rd largest global nuclear arsenal? Presumably inherited from USSR?

pinkfoot 7y ago
Yes. In a moment of touching naiveté they agreed to give it all up and accept the word of other nuclear powers (who got to keep their nukes) that they could rely on said others for protection. One invaded them and the others had a sudden case of acute testicular fortitude failure. Unsuprisingly, South Africa politely refused Obama's repeated, kind-hearted offers to let the USA take their weapons-grade uranium in exchange for (wait for it) a whopping $5 million worth of nuclear fuel. A lesson to all.
- gdy 7y ago
  "In a moment of touching naiveté" Maintaining nuclear arsenal is quite expensive. The Ukrainian elites at that time thought they were just being extremely clever by getting 'guaranteed' security without paying for it. Their successors were dumb enough to threaten Russia's own security by inviting NATO to expand to the Ukraine.
hn23 7y ago
They also produced lots of military goods for Russia. Thus it was no good idea trying to bring them into EU and as second step into NATO. They could have been a perfect neutral state serving both sides. But every side wanted their own oligarch.

antientropic 7y ago

The Budapest Memorandum contains no such commitment (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi...). It states the parties' commitment "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", not to go to war if others violate those.