5 ms·

Inspired by the other (somewhat aggressive) replies, I looked into what the US promised exactly and unfortunately, it looks like there was never a promise to de

by Youden 9mo ago

Inspired by the other (somewhat aggressive) replies, I looked into what the US promised exactly and unfortunately, it looks like there was never a promise to defend Ukraine. The relevant document is the Budapest Memorandum [0]. Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the USA are signatories and essentially each agree to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty and not to engage in certain hostile acts. However the only obligation in the event of a breach is that if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine, or Ukraine is threatened by them, the signatories must seek immediate action from the UN Security Council. I hate to say it but it looks like the US and UK are adhering to the agreement as-written. The problem as I see it is that Ukraine accepted the agreement without stronger security guarantees. [0]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Securit...

tim333 9mo ago
Maybe, but Bill Clinton recently: >“We forced Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. We promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. We made Ukraine vulnerable. So yes, this is our war.” He was the one who did the deal.
- paleotrope 9mo ago
  He should be the one to enforce it then.
  - mcphage 9mo ago
    Are you saying you want to put him back in charge?
    - tim333 9mo ago
      He had decent approval ratings and was the last president to run an actual budget surplus rather than the huge deficits of late so you could do worse.
      - mcphage 9mo ago
        I mean, fair. I just don't think the person I responded to actually thought that part through.
  - _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
    Ah yes, let's not have consistent policy in the USA, and let's not keep our promises/guarantees. That will make America great. If the President says 'this is what I negotiated' we should fulfill that agreement, not look for ways to get out of the agreement or legal loopholes (sure the Ukrainians agreement said one thing, but in the English version we put something less binding). I get that doing so wouldn't be billionaire behavior that we worship (how can I get the better end of the deal AND get out of whatever commitments I made).
- Youden 9mo ago
  I haven't actually seen any evidence of such a promise though. From what I've read, the US explicitly avoided making any such commitments at the time. Was he stating a fact, or was this perhaps some political rhetoric?
epistasis 9mo ago
We can dig into the differences of "security guarantees" versus "security assurances" and the precise requirements in the text, but ultimately the disarmament of Ukraine made a promise to the rest od the world about the possibility of nuclear disarmament. And the question is whether it's possible to have security from Russia unless a country has nuclear weapons. A defended Ukraine promised the rest of the world that they could be a country and not need to build nuclear weapons. An abandoned Ukraine means that every country needs to have nuclear weapons or the world will stand aside as nuclear powers invade every other country. It's quite clear which world Trump wants to live in. As soon as North Korea got the bomb, he started acting sycophantically and weak towards North Korea. We are entering a far more dangerous world, and as far as defense spending goes a far more expensive world by not giving Ukraine the conventional weapons it needs to defend itself.

by Youden 9mo ago

tim333 9mo ago

Maybe, but Bill Clinton recently: >“We forced Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. We promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. We made Ukraine vulnerable. So yes, this is our war.” He was the one who did the deal.

paleotrope 9mo ago
He should be the one to enforce it then.
- mcphage 9mo ago
  Are you saying you want to put him back in charge?
  - tim333 9mo ago
    He had decent approval ratings and was the last president to run an actual budget surplus rather than the huge deficits of late so you could do worse.
    - mcphage 9mo ago
      I mean, fair. I just don't think the person I responded to actually thought that part through.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
  Ah yes, let's not have consistent policy in the USA, and let's not keep our promises/guarantees. That will make America great. If the President says 'this is what I negotiated' we should fulfill that agreement, not look for ways to get out of the agreement or legal loopholes (sure the Ukrainians agreement said one thing, but in the English version we put something less binding). I get that doing so wouldn't be billionaire behavior that we worship (how can I get the better end of the deal AND get out of whatever commitments I made).
Youden 9mo ago
I haven't actually seen any evidence of such a promise though. From what I've read, the US explicitly avoided making any such commitments at the time. Was he stating a fact, or was this perhaps some political rhetoric?

epistasis 9mo ago

We can dig into the differences of "security guarantees" versus "security assurances" and the precise requirements in the text, but ultimately the disarmament of Ukraine made a promise to the rest od the world about the possibility of nuclear disarmament. And the question is whether it's possible to have security from Russia unless a country has nuclear weapons. A defended Ukraine promised the rest of the world that they could be a country and not need to build nuclear weapons. An abandoned Ukraine means that every country needs to have nuclear weapons or the world will stand aside as nuclear powers invade every other country. It's quite clear which world Trump wants to live in. As soon as North Korea got the bomb, he started acting sycophantically and weak towards North Korea. We are entering a far more dangerous world, and as far as defense spending goes a far more expensive world by not giving Ukraine the conventional weapons it needs to defend itself.