3 ms·

"Betray" isn't really the right term, the west were clear from the start that they were in this to bleed Russia and were only planning to provide enough weapons

by roenxi 2y ago

"Betray" isn't really the right term, the west were clear from the start that they were in this to bleed Russia and were only planning to provide enough weapons to keep the conflict simmering in a bloody fashion. Ukraine hopefully understood that they were just running out the clock in the hope that something miraculous would happen on the way through. It still might, wars are unpredictable. We've already gone far beyond the limits of sanity in Ukraine. There is no upside, lots of potential downside and the stench of hypocrisy follows everyone who contributed to the recent expeditions into Iraq and Afghanistan that look mighty similar to what Russia was doing but wasn't met with anything more than shrugs and harsh language. It is a profound mystery why only one of the 3 needs to be escalated like what has been done.

Paradigma11 2y ago
And yet Iraq and Afghanistan are today politically independent from the US. The occupied territories in Ukraine are now Russia.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  *claimed by Russia
meindnoch 2y ago
It's not a mystery. The US, the UK and France ratified the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in return for security assurances. No such treaties existed for Iraq nor Afghanistan.
- _ugfj 2y ago
  This is a popular narrative but really, those nukes were a burden on Ukraine and nothing more -- the forces possessing and maintaining those weapons reported to Russia and any launch needed authorization from the Чегет the Russian head of state held, whoever that was. Sure, they were on Ukrainian land but that was all. That is why Ukraine so easily surrendered all those weapons for extremely weak reassurances. If you were to read the text 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/... you would notice how there's no real security guarantee whatsoever. Basically it says if someone nukes or threatens to nuke Ukraine they will "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine". Sure, there are words saying "the Russian Federation [...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine [...] to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" but what if they don't? tough luck. No one promised help, there's no built in penalty mechanism, nothing.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    I’m sure that over the years they could have reverse engineered the bombs and reused the warheads for more tactical strikes into Russian even if they could maintain the ICBM versions. It’s not like there weren’t a lot of nuke engineers and scientists in Ukraine when they split up the Soviet Empire
    - chx 2y ago
      This brings up a very old memory: the readme of Volkov Commander said the author of it is some nuclear institute in Kyiv. Yup. (Also, I uploaded Volkov Commander to SIMTEL 31 years ago and the ignorant asshole running that site reported me to the university for pirating Norton Commander and they banned me from the university VAX leading me straight to Linux. Funny how that worked out.)
The_Colonel 2y ago
> "Betray" isn't really the right term, the west were clear from the start that they were in this to bleed Russia and were only planning to provide enough weapons to keep the conflict simmering in a bloody fashion. With which mr. West have you talked about it that he's been so clear? As far as I know, "the West" is a collection of many countries, many decision/opinion makers. There's no singular motivation for supporting Ukraine, and there are many other, less cynical motivations than what you insinuate.
- m000 2y ago
  > As far as I know, "the West" is a collection of many countries, many decision/opinion makers. Nice joke. > There's no singular motivation for supporting Ukraine, and there are many other, less cynical motivations than what you insinuate. There is: Because the US said so.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    There is: Because the US said so. This is simply naive, and completely out of touch with how the world actually works.
  - jumping_frog 2y ago
    I sometimes think Americans are "shrewd" in a sense that "Hey, I don't fully understand the system we are in but through some trickle down effects, we are at the top so why bother questioning anything."

by roenxi 2y ago

Paradigma11 2y ago

And yet Iraq and Afghanistan are today politically independent from the US. The occupied territories in Ukraine are now Russia.

EasyMark 2y ago
*claimed by Russia

meindnoch 2y ago

It's not a mystery. The US, the UK and France ratified the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in return for security assurances. No such treaties existed for Iraq nor Afghanistan.

_ugfj 2y ago
This is a popular narrative but really, those nukes were a burden on Ukraine and nothing more -- the forces possessing and maintaining those weapons reported to Russia and any launch needed authorization from the Чегет the Russian head of state held, whoever that was. Sure, they were on Ukrainian land but that was all. That is why Ukraine so easily surrendered all those weapons for extremely weak reassurances. If you were to read the text 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/... you would notice how there's no real security guarantee whatsoever. Basically it says if someone nukes or threatens to nuke Ukraine they will "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine". Sure, there are words saying "the Russian Federation [...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine [...] to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" but what if they don't? tough luck. No one promised help, there's no built in penalty mechanism, nothing.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I’m sure that over the years they could have reverse engineered the bombs and reused the warheads for more tactical strikes into Russian even if they could maintain the ICBM versions. It’s not like there weren’t a lot of nuke engineers and scientists in Ukraine when they split up the Soviet Empire
  - chx 2y ago
    This brings up a very old memory: the readme of Volkov Commander said the author of it is some nuclear institute in Kyiv. Yup. (Also, I uploaded Volkov Commander to SIMTEL 31 years ago and the ignorant asshole running that site reported me to the university for pirating Norton Commander and they banned me from the university VAX leading me straight to Linux. Funny how that worked out.)

The_Colonel 2y ago

> "Betray" isn't really the right term, the west were clear from the start that they were in this to bleed Russia and were only planning to provide enough weapons to keep the conflict simmering in a bloody fashion. With which mr. West have you talked about it that he's been so clear? As far as I know, "the West" is a collection of many countries, many decision/opinion makers. There's no singular motivation for supporting Ukraine, and there are many other, less cynical motivations than what you insinuate.

m000 2y ago
> As far as I know, "the West" is a collection of many countries, many decision/opinion makers. Nice joke. > There's no singular motivation for supporting Ukraine, and there are many other, less cynical motivations than what you insinuate. There is: Because the US said so.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  There is: Because the US said so. This is simply naive, and completely out of touch with how the world actually works.
- jumping_frog 2y ago
  I sometimes think Americans are "shrewd" in a sense that "Hey, I don't fully understand the system we are in but through some trickle down effects, we are at the top so why bother questioning anything."