5 ms·

> Trump actually means to end the war What he really wants is for Ukraine to surrender its lands to Russia. And he is also unwilling to ask Russia to give any

> Trump actually means to end the war What he really wants is for Ukraine to surrender its lands to Russia. And he is also unwilling to ask Russia to give any concessions. We did sign the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees from the US. Shame on us for not honoring it. Also, Ukraine and Europe is not pro-war. They want Russians to go back to their own country. You are calling people who are defending their country from an invader, and their supporters, pro-war axis.

mjburgess 2y ago
There's a Russian army on that land, so its not entirely clear who would be surrendering it. I am not against Europe sending in an army if it wishes. I am not against your pro-war position which seeks, via military means, to retake land in Russia's control. I am more pointing out that you're not actually willing to do anything about it. You're not willing to take any risk to your own security. You can have whatever position you want, but a political slogan isnt a policy -- its not an argument, or a position. It's just some theatrical ploy to make yourself feel better: what is the policy you have (or anyone) to retake the land under russian control? How do you intend to end the war? Ask the school teacher to put Russia in detention? Trump is withdrawing from Ukraine, there is nothing anyone can do about that. If Europe wishes Ukraine to retain all of its land, and far fewer of its lives, it will have to risk its own security. It will not, nor will you: this is the source of the hatred for trump, it requires people of your mind to act -- and that was never on the table I'd imagine the US actions might well violate Budapest, but that was extremely watered down at the time from "gaurentees" to "assurances" so its a very weak position to start with. But in any case the world which now exists has three great powers: US, China, Russia. All three are now "pivoting to each other", and away from non-rivaling activity. If europe doesnt like this, or you don't -- I have no issue with that: go on, do something. The US is not pivoting back to the EU now, under no administration. Just as Biden retained Trump's pivot against China, the next admin (dem or rep) will retain his piovt from the EU -- since both have been the desire of every president over the last 20+ years.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  Russia isn't a great power. Their economy is hollow. They have influence and military power inherited from the Soviet Union, but they don't have the capacity to keep that going, it's been nearly entirely expended on this one jaunt in Ukraine. They have a shrinking population of 144m and have shed their best in the last 2 years. India is a greater power with much more potential energy.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    The reason for determining who is a "great power" is systemic, not based on individual country characteristics. India could be much stronger than russia, but if its surrounded by countries that are quite strong, it's hemmed in and not capable of dominating its region and hence not able to rival the real world powers (/ great powers). A great (or "world") power is one which can leave its region militarily and could withstand an attack from the biggest power in the system (ie., the US). All world powers see non-world-powers as their instruments: the EU was the US's instrument -- by bribery, threat, and protection racket it would get its own way, enrich itself, etc. From the pov of these powers only they are soverign: hence vitnam, iraq, afganistan, cuba, etc. Hence the US engaging in a proxy war in ukraine in the first place. India has pakistan and china to deal with, and its very unclear it can actually leave its area of the world. Hence the US doesnt have to treat it seriously. The only threats (to the US) are the powers that can withstand the US and "go on expiditions" with their militaries in regions that undermine US interests, and so on. Here the US, mostly quite correctly, believes it can establish a detent with Russia -- but cannot with China. Russia is well-integrated into the western system, and only seeks to dominate a region the US has no interest in. The riskto it from china is far greater. It is very easy to imagine China in the western hemisphere, with a navy in a south american country -- it's nearly impossible to imagine this from India (and its highly unlikely from Russia). India poses zero risk, nor is it clear it could ever. So regardless of what criteria you use, it will not factor into the thinking of the world powers. The US in the 90s wanted poland (et al.) to be within its sphere of influence in the EU -- it's own instrument. It got its way. It over-reached trying to bring georgia and ukraine into the system, thinking Russia too weak to do anything about it. Well Russia isnt too weak, it has rebuilt its global status. So the US is running away and trying to reformulate a less ambitious foreign policy which its actually capable of executing
kolanos 2y ago
> US signed Budapest memorandum. We promised to help defend Ukraine, if it gave up its nukes. Now we are trying to shake them down like a mafia. And also asking them to give in to Putin's demands, without asking Putin to give up anything. I keep seeing this on HN and it is just plain wrong. Someone should actually bother to read this thing. [0] > Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising neither to attack nor to threaten to attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document. > The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment". > China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China's governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose but only for "fair consultations". France's declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations. Interesting that China actually signed similar security assurances with Ukraine and is now actively providing military support to Russia without anyone on HN criticizing them.. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [1]: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukraine-war-265df843be030b7183c95b6f3afca8ec https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukrain...
pixxel 2y ago
[dead]

mjburgess 2y ago

There's a Russian army on that land, so its not entirely clear who would be surrendering it. I am not against Europe sending in an army if it wishes. I am not against your pro-war position which seeks, via military means, to retake land in Russia's control. I am more pointing out that you're not actually willing to do anything about it. You're not willing to take any risk to your own security. You can have whatever position you want, but a political slogan isnt a policy -- its not an argument, or a position. It's just some theatrical ploy to make yourself feel better: what is the policy you have (or anyone) to retake the land under russian control? How do you intend to end the war? Ask the school teacher to put Russia in detention? Trump is withdrawing from Ukraine, there is nothing anyone can do about that. If Europe wishes Ukraine to retain all of its land, and far fewer of its lives, it will have to risk its own security. It will not, nor will you: this is the source of the hatred for trump, it requires people of your mind to act -- and that was never on the table I'd imagine the US actions might well violate Budapest, but that was extremely watered down at the time from "gaurentees" to "assurances" so its a very weak position to start with. But in any case the world which now exists has three great powers: US, China, Russia. All three are now "pivoting to each other", and away from non-rivaling activity. If europe doesnt like this, or you don't -- I have no issue with that: go on, do something. The US is not pivoting back to the EU now, under no administration. Just as Biden retained Trump's pivot against China, the next admin (dem or rep) will retain his piovt from the EU -- since both have been the desire of every president over the last 20+ years.

jemmyw 2y ago
Russia isn't a great power. Their economy is hollow. They have influence and military power inherited from the Soviet Union, but they don't have the capacity to keep that going, it's been nearly entirely expended on this one jaunt in Ukraine. They have a shrinking population of 144m and have shed their best in the last 2 years. India is a greater power with much more potential energy.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  The reason for determining who is a "great power" is systemic, not based on individual country characteristics. India could be much stronger than russia, but if its surrounded by countries that are quite strong, it's hemmed in and not capable of dominating its region and hence not able to rival the real world powers (/ great powers). A great (or "world") power is one which can leave its region militarily and could withstand an attack from the biggest power in the system (ie., the US). All world powers see non-world-powers as their instruments: the EU was the US's instrument -- by bribery, threat, and protection racket it would get its own way, enrich itself, etc. From the pov of these powers only they are soverign: hence vitnam, iraq, afganistan, cuba, etc. Hence the US engaging in a proxy war in ukraine in the first place. India has pakistan and china to deal with, and its very unclear it can actually leave its area of the world. Hence the US doesnt have to treat it seriously. The only threats (to the US) are the powers that can withstand the US and "go on expiditions" with their militaries in regions that undermine US interests, and so on. Here the US, mostly quite correctly, believes it can establish a detent with Russia -- but cannot with China. Russia is well-integrated into the western system, and only seeks to dominate a region the US has no interest in. The riskto it from china is far greater. It is very easy to imagine China in the western hemisphere, with a navy in a south american country -- it's nearly impossible to imagine this from India (and its highly unlikely from Russia). India poses zero risk, nor is it clear it could ever. So regardless of what criteria you use, it will not factor into the thinking of the world powers. The US in the 90s wanted poland (et al.) to be within its sphere of influence in the EU -- it's own instrument. It got its way. It over-reached trying to bring georgia and ukraine into the system, thinking Russia too weak to do anything about it. Well Russia isnt too weak, it has rebuilt its global status. So the US is running away and trying to reformulate a less ambitious foreign policy which its actually capable of executing

kolanos 2y ago

> US signed Budapest memorandum. We promised to help defend Ukraine, if it gave up its nukes. Now we are trying to shake them down like a mafia. And also asking them to give in to Putin's demands, without asking Putin to give up anything. I keep seeing this on HN and it is just plain wrong. Someone should actually bother to read this thing. [0] > Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising neither to attack nor to threaten to attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document. > The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment". > China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China's governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose but only for "fair consultations". France's declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations. Interesting that China actually signed similar security assurances with Ukraine and is now actively providing military support to Russia without anyone on HN criticizing them.. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [1]: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukraine-war-265df843be030b7183c95b6f3afca8ec https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukrain...

pixxel 2y ago

[dead]