6 ms·

How about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, USA and UK? In exchange for the first three countries giving up their n

How about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, USA and UK? In exchange for the first three countries giving up their nuclear weapons, the signatories offered them security assurances that included (using wording taken from [1]): * Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. * Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. * Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

mjburgess 5y ago
Agreements of this era also were that NATO wouldnt expand. It did so, twice, into former USSR countries. Agreements are meaningless. If the west wanted russia not to invade Ukraine, the answer was trivial. It was to completely hault NATO expansion. Too late now.
- smcl 5y ago
  No this has been covered thousands of times since the invasion started and it’s getting boring having to repeat it. The commonly cited “agreement” not to expand wasn’t part of any treaties. To the extent that it is said to exist, it was part of some verbal/gentleman’s agreement between leaders who are now dead. I’m not sure what value such agreements would have now, if they ever happened at all.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    I'm not sure why you're set on not understanding geopolitics. Maybe the idea that the west could have done nothing to stop russia is comforting. Maybe the idea that we are blameless is comforting. Maybe russia needs to be evil, for you. You can persist in these delusions if you like. russia has been very clear, and avoiding this disaster was in the west's power, and esp. that of the USA. Germany and france warned the USA this was going to happen, and it insisted ukraine be part of NATO nevertheless. You still think things like "agreements" and "rights" and "soverignty" matter -- they dont. These are just games played amongst friends. When you arent dealing with friends, what matters is real stakes -- not made up things. The USA had the power to prevent this; and indeed, still does. In arming ukraine they are sentencing it to death. Russia will level the country. This was in our power to stop. You lot, in wanting to be Right in the stories you're telling yourselves will get ukraine destroyed. Russia is a rational actor with needs and objectives. We could've given it what it wanted. We still, to a large degree, can. But you have your nationalistic pride, your stories, and your delusions of agreements. This will not end well. Ukraine will be flattened. It is in the wests power to prevent it, instead, we're sending ukraine enough arms to get itself killed. We're not doing this to help ukraine win. It cannot win. It will be destoryed. We're sending arms to ukraine to punish russia and get them bogged down in a quagmire. We're goading ukraine into killing itself so we can punish the russians. These delusional stories you're telling, they cost lives. Ukrainian lives. Lives, no doubt, you're dead set on spending. Russians are pulling the trigger so you have no blood on your hands. I tell you: you do. We're sending the nerd out to the playground with a butter knife, and the big bully is going to send him to hospital.
    - smcl 5y ago
      You have it in your head that I am a weird pro-west, pro-war anti-Russian fanatic despite everything I have said. I’m sorry, I do not think it’s possible to have a conversation like this.
      - mjburgess 5y ago
        pro/anti russian/west here is irrelevant. There are those people who are willing to see this from the pov of the strategic interests of the power players (usa, russia primarily -- uk/eu secondarily); and those who arent. The west has been trapped in a liberal dreamworld for 20yrs where the usa had no great power competition (from either russia or china). That world is now at an end. There are people here still trapped in these liberal stories; "what does ukraine want!!!?!?!?!?!" as-if the answer to that question would save ukrainian lives. No, it will get more killed. There are your strategic goals and how you're going to achieve them. If we wanted ukrain to survive, we would not pursue a policy of arming them. My issue with the people commenting here "on Ukraine's side!!!!" is that they arent. They only on their side within the dreamscape of stories they exist in: rights, soverignty, nationalism, pride. In the real world of the stakes of the powerful, of what they want -- if you wanted to save ukraine, you wouldnt be trying to "win" against russia. That will get ukraine flattened into rubble.
        sidibe 5y ago
        Only you very rational geopolitics experts who understand power politics understand anything that's going on right? Everyone else is just too hopey feely and not paying attention to the framework you have set up. If you look up from your theories, Russia's supposedly mighty military is struggling badly and Ukrainians don't appear to subscribe to your framework that doesn't give them any agency. It's a tragedy maybe it would be better if they just rolled over and let Russia control their politics but they don't want to
        mjburgess 5y ago
        Sure, and the cost of this line of thinking will be thousands and thousands more dead. What you're saying here is that your stories are more important than lives. Look, it's in our interests for ukrainians to die and keep russia bogged down. If I were on "our side", i'd be saying, yes -- keep them in the war for as long as possible. Let russia get bogged down here for years! But I'm inclined to actually keep Ukrainians alive. Its clearly too late for that. The west has set itself the task of regime change in russia, and ukraine is going to be our foolish attempt to trap russia. It won't work. Russia's miltary isnt struggling. It's playing with its hands tied behind its back. It can, and will, level ukraine. Its been trying to offer them a route to surrender with minimal casualities. The west is trying its hardest to keep them in the war. Within the month ukraine will be rubble.

mjburgess 5y ago

Agreements of this era also were that NATO wouldnt expand. It did so, twice, into former USSR countries. Agreements are meaningless. If the west wanted russia not to invade Ukraine, the answer was trivial. It was to completely hault NATO expansion. Too late now.

smcl 5y ago
No this has been covered thousands of times since the invasion started and it’s getting boring having to repeat it. The commonly cited “agreement” not to expand wasn’t part of any treaties. To the extent that it is said to exist, it was part of some verbal/gentleman’s agreement between leaders who are now dead. I’m not sure what value such agreements would have now, if they ever happened at all.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  I'm not sure why you're set on not understanding geopolitics. Maybe the idea that the west could have done nothing to stop russia is comforting. Maybe the idea that we are blameless is comforting. Maybe russia needs to be evil, for you. You can persist in these delusions if you like. russia has been very clear, and avoiding this disaster was in the west's power, and esp. that of the USA. Germany and france warned the USA this was going to happen, and it insisted ukraine be part of NATO nevertheless. You still think things like "agreements" and "rights" and "soverignty" matter -- they dont. These are just games played amongst friends. When you arent dealing with friends, what matters is real stakes -- not made up things. The USA had the power to prevent this; and indeed, still does. In arming ukraine they are sentencing it to death. Russia will level the country. This was in our power to stop. You lot, in wanting to be Right in the stories you're telling yourselves will get ukraine destroyed. Russia is a rational actor with needs and objectives. We could've given it what it wanted. We still, to a large degree, can. But you have your nationalistic pride, your stories, and your delusions of agreements. This will not end well. Ukraine will be flattened. It is in the wests power to prevent it, instead, we're sending ukraine enough arms to get itself killed. We're not doing this to help ukraine win. It cannot win. It will be destoryed. We're sending arms to ukraine to punish russia and get them bogged down in a quagmire. We're goading ukraine into killing itself so we can punish the russians. These delusional stories you're telling, they cost lives. Ukrainian lives. Lives, no doubt, you're dead set on spending. Russians are pulling the trigger so you have no blood on your hands. I tell you: you do. We're sending the nerd out to the playground with a butter knife, and the big bully is going to send him to hospital.
  - smcl 5y ago
    You have it in your head that I am a weird pro-west, pro-war anti-Russian fanatic despite everything I have said. I’m sorry, I do not think it’s possible to have a conversation like this.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      pro/anti russian/west here is irrelevant. There are those people who are willing to see this from the pov of the strategic interests of the power players (usa, russia primarily -- uk/eu secondarily); and those who arent. The west has been trapped in a liberal dreamworld for 20yrs where the usa had no great power competition (from either russia or china). That world is now at an end. There are people here still trapped in these liberal stories; "what does ukraine want!!!?!?!?!?!" as-if the answer to that question would save ukrainian lives. No, it will get more killed. There are your strategic goals and how you're going to achieve them. If we wanted ukrain to survive, we would not pursue a policy of arming them. My issue with the people commenting here "on Ukraine's side!!!!" is that they arent. They only on their side within the dreamscape of stories they exist in: rights, soverignty, nationalism, pride. In the real world of the stakes of the powerful, of what they want -- if you wanted to save ukraine, you wouldnt be trying to "win" against russia. That will get ukraine flattened into rubble.
      - sidibe 5y ago
        Only you very rational geopolitics experts who understand power politics understand anything that's going on right? Everyone else is just too hopey feely and not paying attention to the framework you have set up. If you look up from your theories, Russia's supposedly mighty military is struggling badly and Ukrainians don't appear to subscribe to your framework that doesn't give them any agency. It's a tragedy maybe it would be better if they just rolled over and let Russia control their politics but they don't want to
        mjburgess 5y ago
        Sure, and the cost of this line of thinking will be thousands and thousands more dead. What you're saying here is that your stories are more important than lives. Look, it's in our interests for ukrainians to die and keep russia bogged down. If I were on "our side", i'd be saying, yes -- keep them in the war for as long as possible. Let russia get bogged down here for years! But I'm inclined to actually keep Ukrainians alive. Its clearly too late for that. The west has set itself the task of regime change in russia, and ukraine is going to be our foolish attempt to trap russia. It won't work. Russia's miltary isnt struggling. It's playing with its hands tied behind its back. It can, and will, level ukraine. Its been trying to offer them a route to surrender with minimal casualities. The west is trying its hardest to keep them in the war. Within the month ukraine will be rubble.