Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
2 Likes
Good advice!
The signatories to the memorandum individually promise to respect Ukraine’s independence and borders and to not do invasions against Ukraine. Which is very different from an obligation to defend Ukraine upon invasion. Russia breaking this agreement does not in any way obligate the US to come to Ukraine’s defense.
1 Like
Can you guys debate this without the constant poking and jabbing based on your histories please.
Who’s “you guys”? No one’s really doing that as far as I can see.
we are just having a microcosm of an international dialogue which already happened.
In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, “Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes.”[34] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out that “there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is ‘to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine’”. Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov’s claim on the Twitter account of Russia’s embassy in the United Kingdom actually “provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated – right there for everyone to see.” Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented on “the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?”[35] Russia argued that the United States broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the Yanukovych government.
There were a few flags so I just wanted to add it in hoping to curb any escalation. Carry on! Thanks.
No we aren’t. I’m saying that Russia broke the promise it made in the Budapest memorandum. I’m pointing out that the US doesn’t have any obligation to defend Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. Which is to say this is a straight up falsehood:
The US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in that it promised not to invade Ukraine. It didn’t promise to defend Ukraine against an invasion.
1 Like
Does that include letting them into NATO?
Hell no.
OK, so then it’s not “up to them” at all. You want to actively shun Ukraine and let Russia have their way with them.
Russia, US, and UK agreed to “seek immediate action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression”. and yes, putin threatened to use all weapons at his disposal, which isn’t even a veiled hint at nukes.
i say obligation, you say “tomato in russian!”
1 Like
Relax
I would encourage everyone to look at the rest of the sentence that you abruptly edited in that bolded quote.
putin threatened to use nuclear weapons in the conflict in ukraine. yes or no?
I don’t want the US to be allied with Ukraine. If the US doesn’t ally with Ukraine, which is the default position of any two nations, Ukraine’s relationship with Russia is up to Ukraine. They could pursue whatever strategy they like.
is the big gotcha that russia (a guarantor of the memorandum) vetoed the resolution at the UN? wow, technically correct. probably should rollback javelins etc.
1 Like
No, that the “immediate action” promised was that of the security council, as the sentence said, so I found the first image I could find of immediate security council action