3 ms·

>Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. The US never promised to protect Ukraine. It's often clai

>Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. The US never promised to protect Ukraine. It's often claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was a promise from the US to protect Ukraine, but this is misinformation. Read the memorandum for yourself if you don't believe me, it's not very long: 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...

bawolff 5mo ago
I don't think that is really relavent. Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Even without a formal promise, other countries are going to notice america hanging ukraine out to dry and add that to their calculations when deciding who to be buddy-buddy with.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  >Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Well then maybe the US stopped sending them weapons in order to address the underlying problem?
  - lostlogin 5mo ago
    Where does Trump sucking up to Putin fit into this? What problem is that solving?
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      bawolff stated: >Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Wouldn't this theory predict that if NATO/USA becomes hostile to Ukraine, the invasion will cease? According to bawolff's worldview, Trump's foreign policy will address the root cause, no? They should be supporting Trump.
      - bawolff 5mo ago
        In my world view, yes, Ukraine firmly returning to the russian sphere of influence, perhaps even agreeing to become a puppet state of russia, would stop the invasion. Of course Ukraine does not want that, hence war. Surrendering is always a way to gain peace, but most countries do not view such a peace as worth the cost. Ultimately the war continues because USA is not the only western country in existence and the rest of the west is still willing to provide support sufficient for Ukraine to keep fighting.
        mopsi 5mo ago
        This is an utterly naive take. Russia would in that case forcibly conscript from Ukraine's population for further westward invasions, which serves the purpose of exterminating the local male population to suppress resistance and make room for Russian settlers. We already saw this during the initial invasion in 2014 and the forcible conscription early in the full-scale invasion in 2022. Russia's ambitions are laid out in the ultimatum presented in 2021.
        bawolff 5mo ago
        I think that possibility agrees with my take.
- graemep 5mo ago
  > Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Also because it was considering joining the EU. The Russians threatened at least as early as 2008 that they would invade Ukraine if they did either. They actually invaded Ukraine in 2014 and captured a lot of territory. Why did the US and their European allies not plan for the Russians doing what they had threatened to do and had actually done in the past? It seems incompetent.
  - znort_ 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ethbr1 5mo ago
      > if you're referring to the "green men" in crimea: those were the ukranian (but culturally russian) garrissoned troops If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022, then I have a bridge to sell you. Or do you think Russia is in the habit of randomly transporting air defense systems with Russian crew through different nation-states they have nothing to do with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Findings_of_the_joint_investigation_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Fi...
      - znort_ 5mo ago
        > If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022 that's not what i said, and supporting a warring faction doesn't really qualify as "invasion" nor "taking territory". also, i would recommend very strict skepticism about politically sensitive content on wikipedia. it can still be useful for general timelines, but a simple check at the sources (when there are any) will reveal they tend to be overwhelmingly one-sided. it's fine if you want to learn about, say, birds, engines or stars, though.
        mopsi 5mo ago
        The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has established that there was no genuine separatism in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. From the get-go, these were operatives of Russian military and special services, or people under their direct control. Girkin, one of the main leaders of Russian forces in Ukraine, has confirmed the same: there was no grassroots action; it was them who started the war in 2014. Removing insignia from uniforms does not make it any less of a foreign invasion. ECHR's lengthy verdict on the responsibility of the MH-17 shootdown lays out all the relevant facts.
otherme123 5mo ago
Point 1: "The Russian Federation., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" Point 4 of the Memorandum: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 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." US actions in the UN: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go "The US has twice sided with Russia in votes at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the Trump administration's change of stance on the war. First, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity - voting the same way as Russia and countries including North Korea and Belarus at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Then the US drafted and voted for a resolution at the UN Security Council which called for an end to the conflict, but contained no criticism of Russia." The US has almost nothing to do (vote in the UN against Russia aggression), and yet did less than that. They can hide behind technicalities, but the truth is that Trump is acting like a Putin asset. For decades there has been a political fight in eastern Europe where the US projected power supporting governments that sympathized with western countries (enter NATO, enter UE, enter western markets, welcome western industries). US was winning the fight without shooting a bullet until Trump. US has no official treaty with Israel (except the 10 year rolling aid), yet we would be shocked if suddenly an US government turn to support Israel neighbors and vote against them in the UN.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  Note, the US did seek UN security council action when Ukraine was invaded, back when Biden was president. Russia vetoed of course.
  - otherme123 5mo ago
oneshtein 5mo ago
garanties de sécurité

bawolff 5mo ago

I don't think that is really relavent. Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Even without a formal promise, other countries are going to notice america hanging ukraine out to dry and add that to their calculations when deciding who to be buddy-buddy with.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
>Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Well then maybe the US stopped sending them weapons in order to address the underlying problem?
- lostlogin 5mo ago
  Where does Trump sucking up to Putin fit into this? What problem is that solving?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    bawolff stated: >Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Wouldn't this theory predict that if NATO/USA becomes hostile to Ukraine, the invasion will cease? According to bawolff's worldview, Trump's foreign policy will address the root cause, no? They should be supporting Trump.
    - bawolff 5mo ago
      In my world view, yes, Ukraine firmly returning to the russian sphere of influence, perhaps even agreeing to become a puppet state of russia, would stop the invasion. Of course Ukraine does not want that, hence war. Surrendering is always a way to gain peace, but most countries do not view such a peace as worth the cost. Ultimately the war continues because USA is not the only western country in existence and the rest of the west is still willing to provide support sufficient for Ukraine to keep fighting.
      - mopsi 5mo ago
        This is an utterly naive take. Russia would in that case forcibly conscript from Ukraine's population for further westward invasions, which serves the purpose of exterminating the local male population to suppress resistance and make room for Russian settlers. We already saw this during the initial invasion in 2014 and the forcible conscription early in the full-scale invasion in 2022. Russia's ambitions are laid out in the ultimatum presented in 2021.
        bawolff 5mo ago
        I think that possibility agrees with my take.
graemep 5mo ago
> Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Also because it was considering joining the EU. The Russians threatened at least as early as 2008 that they would invade Ukraine if they did either. They actually invaded Ukraine in 2014 and captured a lot of territory. Why did the US and their European allies not plan for the Russians doing what they had threatened to do and had actually done in the past? It seems incompetent.
- znort_ 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ethbr1 5mo ago
    > if you're referring to the "green men" in crimea: those were the ukranian (but culturally russian) garrissoned troops If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022, then I have a bridge to sell you. Or do you think Russia is in the habit of randomly transporting air defense systems with Russian crew through different nation-states they have nothing to do with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Findings_of_the_joint_investigation_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Fi...
    - znort_ 5mo ago
      > If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022 that's not what i said, and supporting a warring faction doesn't really qualify as "invasion" nor "taking territory". also, i would recommend very strict skepticism about politically sensitive content on wikipedia. it can still be useful for general timelines, but a simple check at the sources (when there are any) will reveal they tend to be overwhelmingly one-sided. it's fine if you want to learn about, say, birds, engines or stars, though.
      - mopsi 5mo ago
        The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has established that there was no genuine separatism in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. From the get-go, these were operatives of Russian military and special services, or people under their direct control. Girkin, one of the main leaders of Russian forces in Ukraine, has confirmed the same: there was no grassroots action; it was them who started the war in 2014. Removing insignia from uniforms does not make it any less of a foreign invasion. ECHR's lengthy verdict on the responsibility of the MH-17 shootdown lays out all the relevant facts.

otherme123 5mo ago

Point 1: "The Russian Federation., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" Point 4 of the Memorandum: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 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." US actions in the UN: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go "The US has twice sided with Russia in votes at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the Trump administration's change of stance on the war. First, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity - voting the same way as Russia and countries including North Korea and Belarus at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Then the US drafted and voted for a resolution at the UN Security Council which called for an end to the conflict, but contained no criticism of Russia." The US has almost nothing to do (vote in the UN against Russia aggression), and yet did less than that. They can hide behind technicalities, but the truth is that Trump is acting like a Putin asset. For decades there has been a political fight in eastern Europe where the US projected power supporting governments that sympathized with western countries (enter NATO, enter UE, enter western markets, welcome western industries). US was winning the fight without shooting a bullet until Trump. US has no official treaty with Israel (except the 10 year rolling aid), yet we would be shocked if suddenly an US government turn to support Israel neighbors and vote against them in the UN.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
Note, the US did seek UN security council action when Ukraine was invaded, back when Biden was president. Russia vetoed of course.
- otherme123 5mo ago

oneshtein 5mo ago

garanties de sécurité