6 ms·

>American security support for Ukraine is recent Um, it's not _that_ recent, it dates to at least 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Sec

by temp 5y ago

>American security support for Ukraine is recent Um, it's not _that_ recent, it dates to at least 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... which is almost the length of its independence

ipnon 5y ago
Russian security support is also not recent! The primary condition of Ukraine's denuclearization was that Russia, along with the United States, France, and UK, would defend Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial claims perpetually. It seems one of these parties signed with disappearing ink.
- nekcihc 5y ago
  Exactly - there is no such reputation for Russia and it has proven once again, that words of Russians are not even worth what paper is worth, but for everybody else - it is a trap. It was really naive to give such guarantees - they could be more realistic and demand, that Russia at least remove military bases from territory of Ukraine. Even the current events were because of fears to lose Sevastopol - pride of USSR military(which did nothing in WW2). US and other signing power reputations is worth more(than Russians) and rest of the world is watching. US has already lost a lot of soft power and this entrapment is another dent in reputation for vaning superpower.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Remember when the US promised to leave Libya alone if they denuclearized and then Khadaffi got a rusty bayonet jammed up his back side? That one is why Putin wanted anybody except Hillary to be President. Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? The US developed collective amnesia over that.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      > Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? You've fallen for Russian disinformation. This lie keeps getting spread around and corrected. Baker mentioned this to Gorbachev in preliminary talks for the treaty after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a "what if? what concessions would the USSR then make?" It was then immediately struck down as an option by other US bureaucrats, never made it into the treaty, and Gorbachev never even mentioned it again until 2008 when he said US never promised this but expanding NATO into Baltics and such was against the "spirit" of the talks. One person, even a Secretary of State, spitballing ideas about what a treaty would look like is not even close to any sort of agreement between entire superpowers.
      - pydry 5y ago
        It happened multiple times. It is not a lie, no matter how much the US state department tries to double down on the amnesia. >The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did. https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/ https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-n... Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Probably it would have made no difference anyway. There's no independent court of international law to adjudicate. Treaties and memoranda arent all that different in the end. It could be partly cultural. I've noticed when dealing with Americans the idea that you cant expect people to keep their word if it's not explicitly written into a contract is quite common. It's also idiosyncratically American - I havent noticed this word-is-worthless/contracts-sacrosanct "if we take you for a ride it's your fault" attitude elsewhere.
- nickff 5y ago
  It seems like none of the other parties are defending Ukraine's sovereignty, and one is violating it (Russia). None of them seem willing to keep their defense commitments.
- sharikous 5y ago
  To be fair, given the 2014 events, all the parties signed with disappearing ink. Russia invaded, but the US, France and UK failed their obligation too.
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    How? Budapest Memorandum only required parties to respect borders, not to defend them. They only need to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when there is threat of using nuclear weapons.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Putin's claim is that he signed it with the legitimate government of Ukraine and that Ukraine is no longer legitimately governed since the Maidan "coup". It's similar in nature to the UK's insistence that Venezuelan gold cant be sent back to Venezuela - since it is not legitimately governed. Or when revolutions take place and new governments decide that the debts of the "old" government dont apply to the new. US also threatened sanctions against Ukraine in 2004 in violation of article 3, presumably under the same theory (& because they just didnt like yanukovych). International law is mostly a matter might makes right and/or opinion it seems. There is no court, after all. One side's coup is another's spontaneous democratic uprising and one side's free and fair elections is another party's rigged ballot.
      - nekcihc 5y ago
        UK has not seized Venezuelan gold - as soon as Venezuela will get recognized government, UK will restore Venezuelan rights to their gold. How this even compares to Crimea? Russia has no intention to give Crimea back - no matter what government is in Ukraine. Russia was already very nervous about Sevastopol naval base under Yanukovich, when the rent agreement was running out and that is the only reason for seizing Crimea, as this allows it to maintain than naval base. It is also a theft, as so far Russia was paying rent for that base and now it doesn't have to.
        5y ago

by temp 5y ago

ipnon 5y ago

Russian security support is also not recent! The primary condition of Ukraine's denuclearization was that Russia, along with the United States, France, and UK, would defend Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial claims perpetually. It seems one of these parties signed with disappearing ink.

nekcihc 5y ago
Exactly - there is no such reputation for Russia and it has proven once again, that words of Russians are not even worth what paper is worth, but for everybody else - it is a trap. It was really naive to give such guarantees - they could be more realistic and demand, that Russia at least remove military bases from territory of Ukraine. Even the current events were because of fears to lose Sevastopol - pride of USSR military(which did nothing in WW2). US and other signing power reputations is worth more(than Russians) and rest of the world is watching. US has already lost a lot of soft power and this entrapment is another dent in reputation for vaning superpower.
- pydry 5y ago
  Remember when the US promised to leave Libya alone if they denuclearized and then Khadaffi got a rusty bayonet jammed up his back side? That one is why Putin wanted anybody except Hillary to be President. Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? The US developed collective amnesia over that.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    > Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? You've fallen for Russian disinformation. This lie keeps getting spread around and corrected. Baker mentioned this to Gorbachev in preliminary talks for the treaty after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a "what if? what concessions would the USSR then make?" It was then immediately struck down as an option by other US bureaucrats, never made it into the treaty, and Gorbachev never even mentioned it again until 2008 when he said US never promised this but expanding NATO into Baltics and such was against the "spirit" of the talks. One person, even a Secretary of State, spitballing ideas about what a treaty would look like is not even close to any sort of agreement between entire superpowers.
    - pydry 5y ago
      It happened multiple times. It is not a lie, no matter how much the US state department tries to double down on the amnesia. >The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did. https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/ https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-n... Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Probably it would have made no difference anyway. There's no independent court of international law to adjudicate. Treaties and memoranda arent all that different in the end. It could be partly cultural. I've noticed when dealing with Americans the idea that you cant expect people to keep their word if it's not explicitly written into a contract is quite common. It's also idiosyncratically American - I havent noticed this word-is-worthless/contracts-sacrosanct "if we take you for a ride it's your fault" attitude elsewhere.
nickff 5y ago
It seems like none of the other parties are defending Ukraine's sovereignty, and one is violating it (Russia). None of them seem willing to keep their defense commitments.
sharikous 5y ago
To be fair, given the 2014 events, all the parties signed with disappearing ink. Russia invaded, but the US, France and UK failed their obligation too.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  How? Budapest Memorandum only required parties to respect borders, not to defend them. They only need to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when there is threat of using nuclear weapons.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Putin's claim is that he signed it with the legitimate government of Ukraine and that Ukraine is no longer legitimately governed since the Maidan "coup". It's similar in nature to the UK's insistence that Venezuelan gold cant be sent back to Venezuela - since it is not legitimately governed. Or when revolutions take place and new governments decide that the debts of the "old" government dont apply to the new. US also threatened sanctions against Ukraine in 2004 in violation of article 3, presumably under the same theory (& because they just didnt like yanukovych). International law is mostly a matter might makes right and/or opinion it seems. There is no court, after all. One side's coup is another's spontaneous democratic uprising and one side's free and fair elections is another party's rigged ballot.
    - nekcihc 5y ago
      UK has not seized Venezuelan gold - as soon as Venezuela will get recognized government, UK will restore Venezuelan rights to their gold. How this even compares to Crimea? Russia has no intention to give Crimea back - no matter what government is in Ukraine. Russia was already very nervous about Sevastopol naval base under Yanukovich, when the rent agreement was running out and that is the only reason for seizing Crimea, as this allows it to maintain than naval base. It is also a theft, as so far Russia was paying rent for that base and now it doesn't have to.
      - 5y ago