> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed
No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.
No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.
There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise.
Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1].
Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine.
[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Which they did.
Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).
[1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...
Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump
America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.
Come on.
> because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty
We're treating their borders as violable in the negotations. That violates the deal. The fact that many Americans have jumped the shark when it comes to honest dealing sort of underwrites why we're no longer a reliable partner--we don't even know when we're lying.
US is still a reliable partner - which is why many countries continue to be in partnership with it. Fact is, US had made no promise to protect Ukraine.
That challenges its borders! If I agree not to steal your stuff and you find me hiring someone to steal your stuff, and I start arguing around the technicalities of our agreement, I’m a dishonourable liar!
> US is still a reliable partner
Are you watching the markets? Are you seeing the trade barriers go up? Our export companies are crashing. Our allies are writing separate security agreements, agreements that not only duplicate our own but balance American power.
I swear to god modern America is half made up of Calvin Coolidges. I’m not quite with Thiel on revisiting universal suffrage. But obviously the law of large numbers isn’t working when so correlated by social media.
'to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;'
The US is making any support contingent on a peace agreement that Ukraine doesn't want because it doesn't want to give up it's land.
If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.
https://bsky.app/profile/dittie.bsky.social/post/3lji5yzf5ns...
Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
> ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders....
And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time
> While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]
Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?