2 ms·
I agree it would have been a fortune, but at the same time the US has consistently proven it has no problem spending an unlimited amount of money and then never
by hellojesus 3y ago
I agree it would have been a fortune, but at the same time the US has consistently proven it has no problem spending an unlimited amount of money and then never actually paying for it. It seems like a weird line to draw to me, especially when they could have adjusted the pay via a hazard pay line item to keep it from being sticky.
Compared to how much the US has spent on Ukraine over the past couple years, how much more would've it cost to fund teachers at that time?*
*I've read the Budapest Memorandum is not legally binding; plus the US didn't do much when Chrimea happened anyway.
- lisasays 3y agoI've read the Budapest Memorandum is not legally binding Unfortunately what you were reading were statements from Vladimir Putin to that effect. The view of international law scholars is that it is in fact legally binding in that it is essentially an extension of the Helsinki Accords. At any rate, the main case for the illegality of both the 2014 and 2022 invasions rests with the UN Charter, not the Budapest Memorandum.
- hellojesus 3y agoIllegality of the invasion is not akin to a commitment of defense from the US. I am more concerned with what the US' legal obligation is to Ukraine. There is no reason to dump money into the country if we don't have a legal obligation. It's more akin to insanity. If the US is legally obligated to provided funding only due to the Budapest Memorandum, I understand. Short of that it makes little sense considering how the US already refuses to pay its debt. It's selling out its position in the world for almost no gain.
- lisasays 3y agoIf what's going on in Ukraine is simply a matter of money and legal obligation to you -- then it's clear there's nothing to discuss here.