4 ms·

While I agree with the sentiment and the conclusion, Ukraine was never an ironclad, formal ally, in the sense that NATO countries are, or Japan or Australia. Th

While I agree with the sentiment and the conclusion, Ukraine was never an ironclad, formal ally, in the sense that NATO countries are, or Japan or Australia. The closest to a formal alliance is the 1994 agreement, whereby Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for its borders and sovereignty being guaranteed, by Russia, UK and USA. So within these parameters, the USA has actually done a lot, and a lot more than nothing. I'm not sure at what point it has fulfilled its duty. I'm not defending the US decision though, it seems that bang for buck of helping Ukraine is one of the best spent defence money in this century so far.

rllearneratwork 3y ago
"USA has actually done a lot" - so did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not? The worst thing to do (which USA did) is to make a promise and not deliver. Had Ukraine knew that USA will abandon it, it might have entered negotiations in early 2023 from a much more favorable position.
- floxy 3y ago
  >did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not? Seems like the U.S. did not guarantee Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. Or at least not according to my reading of The Budapest Memorandum: https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948 https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/... ...right?
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Seems to have done a ton, based on the amount of support and aid?
sushid 3y ago
So it brokered a protection deal in exchange for nuclear weapons and then... reneged on its promise?
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  Well, one of the other three nations in on the deal reneged so hard they invaded (twice, or once with a delayed extension of the invasion depending on perspective). The US has supplied materiel and training, but not personnel (in the combatant sense, at least). And if the House would pass a funding bill for it, more would be supplied.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    And to be incredibly clear, ¶ 4 of the Budapest Memorandum committed the United States "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1]. Assuming we sever the last "or" such that the clause activates if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression," the commitment was to seek UNSC action to provide assistance. America sought that. And it's directly providing assistance. America never guaranteed the security of Ukraine. [1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  Well, it poured tens of billions of military aid on Ukraine over 2 years, supplied tons of intelligence, training, conceded to US made arms being transferred. I'd say that is a lot. More would be better, but I don't think we are in the realms of "reneging on promises". The original agreement was very vague. Was it to mean that the US would defend Ukraine will all it's military might, up to conscripting Americans and sending out nukes? Surely not.
legitster 3y ago
Anyone who is honestly advocating for an Iraq-era world police mobilization (with the bonus threat of nuclear decimation of the host country) is clearly trolling. The exact same people would be decrying occupation and the loss of US lives within x number of years if the inverse has happened. So they were ready to complain either way. As it is, the administration has threaded the political needle perfectly (or luckily) and the Ukrainian people have proven that their bravery and resolve has been vastly underrated.
- sowut 3y ago
  [flagged]
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Giving them some weapon systems (Patriot defense batteries, HIMARS, Artillery, radar) but then not supplying ammo or parts or maintenance capabilities is an extremely punk move, extremely shitty, and was never the intent. Helping this new found ally is the easiest thing in the world, is such an incredibly important bulwark for the whole world. But there are nutjobs, absolute crazy shit insane people that rail against Mainstream Media, for whom doing sensible things dangerously allows reality in. They can't support this because to support it would be to support something that the rest of the politicians support, and their attempts to politically "alt" themselves would be in trouble by working with others. These vainglorious fools have invited madness in, and held up support that should never have been delayed.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    I personally think this was all well orchestrated by Russia, social media has given bad state actors the ability to "backdoor" the minds of millions in the west. It's really quite genius.
jltsiren 3y ago
Duty is not the right way to frame the situation. This is more about the overall goals of US foreign policy. If the US wants to maintain a favorable status quo and its position as the dominant superpower, it must support Ukraine until Russia admits failure and withdraws its troops. The current world order is based on a simple deal. The US supports friendly countries around the world and provides them security against regional threats. Those countries in turn support US policy goals in faraway issues they wouldn't otherwise care about. On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  > On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine. The consequences of such a mindset need to be understood: this would be catastrophic for US business interests and economy. Not saying you're unaware, but others might be.
  - weard_beard 3y ago
    Many Americans romanticize the idea of business interests and the economy failing. We are well past levels of wealth inequality that aught to cause bloodshed. The US will have its hands full with its own insurrections. A civil war would hamper power projection around the globe. Its good to see Japan released from its pacifist obligations. Now the US can get onto the business of civil war 2. End slavery again.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  This, I fully agree with. My point is only, sad as it is, I don't see America's disengagement as in flagrant violation to it's pre-2022 commitments. The sad counterpart to the great institution that is NATO is that NATO countries won't go out of their way to defend non-NATO countries. NATO already is a stretch of capabilities and goodwill, and I think it's telling that the fractures that show go along cultural boundaries: the "loosest" parts of NATO right now are US and Turkey. Again, I think NATO and US would be stupid to not continue supporting Ukraine, just not because they are reneging on an alliance.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Looks like giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for "protection" is the stupidest thing a government can possibly do.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  Won’t ever happen again after this.
- Manabu-eo 3y ago
  Nuclear weapons they weren't able to use?

rllearneratwork 3y ago

"USA has actually done a lot" - so did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not? The worst thing to do (which USA did) is to make a promise and not deliver. Had Ukraine knew that USA will abandon it, it might have entered negotiations in early 2023 from a much more favorable position.

floxy 3y ago
>did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not? Seems like the U.S. did not guarantee Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. Or at least not according to my reading of The Budapest Memorandum: https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948 https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/... ...right?
ajkjk 3y ago
Seems to have done a ton, based on the amount of support and aid?

sushid 3y ago

So it brokered a protection deal in exchange for nuclear weapons and then... reneged on its promise?

Jtsummers 3y ago
Well, one of the other three nations in on the deal reneged so hard they invaded (twice, or once with a delayed extension of the invasion depending on perspective). The US has supplied materiel and training, but not personnel (in the combatant sense, at least). And if the House would pass a funding bill for it, more would be supplied.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  And to be incredibly clear, ¶ 4 of the Budapest Memorandum committed the United States "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1]. Assuming we sever the last "or" such that the clause activates if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression," the commitment was to seek UNSC action to provide assistance. America sought that. And it's directly providing assistance. America never guaranteed the security of Ukraine. [1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
rich_sasha 3y ago
Well, it poured tens of billions of military aid on Ukraine over 2 years, supplied tons of intelligence, training, conceded to US made arms being transferred. I'd say that is a lot. More would be better, but I don't think we are in the realms of "reneging on promises". The original agreement was very vague. Was it to mean that the US would defend Ukraine will all it's military might, up to conscripting Americans and sending out nukes? Surely not.

legitster 3y ago

Anyone who is honestly advocating for an Iraq-era world police mobilization (with the bonus threat of nuclear decimation of the host country) is clearly trolling. The exact same people would be decrying occupation and the loss of US lives within x number of years if the inverse has happened. So they were ready to complain either way. As it is, the administration has threaded the political needle perfectly (or luckily) and the Ukrainian people have proven that their bravery and resolve has been vastly underrated.

sowut 3y ago
[flagged]
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Giving them some weapon systems (Patriot defense batteries, HIMARS, Artillery, radar) but then not supplying ammo or parts or maintenance capabilities is an extremely punk move, extremely shitty, and was never the intent. Helping this new found ally is the easiest thing in the world, is such an incredibly important bulwark for the whole world. But there are nutjobs, absolute crazy shit insane people that rail against Mainstream Media, for whom doing sensible things dangerously allows reality in. They can't support this because to support it would be to support something that the rest of the politicians support, and their attempts to politically "alt" themselves would be in trouble by working with others. These vainglorious fools have invited madness in, and held up support that should never have been delayed.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  I personally think this was all well orchestrated by Russia, social media has given bad state actors the ability to "backdoor" the minds of millions in the west. It's really quite genius.

jltsiren 3y ago

Duty is not the right way to frame the situation. This is more about the overall goals of US foreign policy. If the US wants to maintain a favorable status quo and its position as the dominant superpower, it must support Ukraine until Russia admits failure and withdraws its troops. The current world order is based on a simple deal. The US supports friendly countries around the world and provides them security against regional threats. Those countries in turn support US policy goals in faraway issues they wouldn't otherwise care about. On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine.

KerrAvon 3y ago
> On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine. The consequences of such a mindset need to be understood: this would be catastrophic for US business interests and economy. Not saying you're unaware, but others might be.
- weard_beard 3y ago
  Many Americans romanticize the idea of business interests and the economy failing. We are well past levels of wealth inequality that aught to cause bloodshed. The US will have its hands full with its own insurrections. A civil war would hamper power projection around the globe. Its good to see Japan released from its pacifist obligations. Now the US can get onto the business of civil war 2. End slavery again.
rich_sasha 3y ago
This, I fully agree with. My point is only, sad as it is, I don't see America's disengagement as in flagrant violation to it's pre-2022 commitments. The sad counterpart to the great institution that is NATO is that NATO countries won't go out of their way to defend non-NATO countries. NATO already is a stretch of capabilities and goodwill, and I think it's telling that the fractures that show go along cultural boundaries: the "loosest" parts of NATO right now are US and Turkey. Again, I think NATO and US would be stupid to not continue supporting Ukraine, just not because they are reneging on an alliance.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Looks like giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for "protection" is the stupidest thing a government can possibly do.

bamboozled 3y ago
Won’t ever happen again after this.
Manabu-eo 3y ago
Nuclear weapons they weren't able to use?