War in Ukraine

#79,626
#79,626
MontyPython said:
Yet Russia *is* advancing now. Slow for sure and their losses are horrific by Western standards, but Putin doesn't GAF. And Russia has recently adopted federal budgets effectively putting it on war footing... Doubling its defense budget.

Putin's timeframe extends well beyond our 4 year prez cycles. He owns Russia.
Click to expand...
Do the surrounding countries see his glacial expansion?
 
#79,627
#79,627
volbound1700 said:
Although Russia is aggressive, their goals are far more limited and less nefarious than Hitler.

IMO, Putin just wants to make Russia a world power again by retaking former Republics of the USSR (or making them vassals) while Hitler literally wanted to kill most the Slavic people of Europe and replace them with Germans on their lands (well maybe not kill them but drive them out of Eastern Europe).
Click to expand...
You know this... How?
 
#79,630
#79,630
McDad said:
You are aware that I haven't argued that there is no agreement or that we shouldn't abide by the agreement or the points you've made about Ukraine compromising their defensive capability, correct?

I am asking if the agreement you are referencing outlines the total and the time for the agreement to be fulfilled. Do you have an answer?
Click to expand...

The agreement was that we will uphold Ukraine's sovereignty, and they will destroy their long range missiles and bombers, and give fissile materials to Russia.

That sovereignty has been compromised for a decade now, and we didn't start providing aid until two years ago. My assumption would be that until their sovereignty is restored to the level it existed when the document was signed, we'd be obligated to support them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#79,631
#79,631
BeardedVol said:
The agreement was that we will uphold Ukraine's sovereignty, and they will destroy their long range missiles and bombers, and give fissile materials to Russia.

That sovereignty has been compromised for a decade now, and we didn't start providing aid until two years ago. My assumption would be that until their sovereignty is restarted to the level it existed when the document was signed, we'd be obligated to support them.
Click to expand...

Ok, again. How far do we go in order to fulfill the promise you believe we made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,634
#79,634
BeardedVol said:
The agreement was that we will uphold Ukraine's sovereignty, and they will destroy their long range missiles and bombers, and give fissile materials to Russia.

That sovereignty has been compromised for a decade now, and we didn't start providing aid until two years ago. My assumption would be that until their sovereignty is restarted to the level it existed when the document was signed, we'd be obligated to support them.
Click to expand...
Either the agreement does not specify how much support and at what time it has to be fulfilled or you're unwilling to answer because you don't know or you think the answer weakens your position. I am not looking for "gotchas". I am trying to better understand this agreement.

I asked for those specifics in the agreement because you are referencing the slow trickle of Aid we've already given. Well unless the document or the agreement specifies how timely we are to give those things, it is up to our discretion about how timely we get the stuff to them. I mean if we are obligated because of the agreement and the agreement doesn't make reference to a timeline, then we are meeting Our obligation and not in violation of that obligation as outlined.
Correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#79,637
#79,637
McDad said:
I don't understand.
Is the amount of help or the timeline for delivery specified in the agreement?
Click to expand...
It’s totally ambiguous as hell mcdaddio and that’s on purpose. It’s a horrible agreement. But we signed it and Ukraine gave up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile as consideration for all of the signatories
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol and McDad
#79,639
#79,639
MontyPython said:
You know this... How?
Click to expand...

Ironically, both Hitler and Putin are pretty loud about their goals and were at the time. Frankly, Hitler told everyone what he truly wanted to do in the 1920s with "Mein Kempf".

Putin has given hints that he wants to restore the USSR and sees the loss of power (and territory) by Russia as a tragedy.
 
#79,641
#79,641
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s totally ambiguous as hell mcdaddio and that’s on purpose. It’s a horrible agreement. But we signed it and Ukraine gave up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile as consideration for all of the signatories
Click to expand...
We signed a bad agreement and we are self-imposing urgency to fulfill the terms of the bad agreement. That about cover it?
 
#79,642
#79,642
volbound1700 said:
Ironically, both Hitler and Putin are pretty loud about their goals and were at the time. Frankly, Hitler told everyone what he truly wanted to do in the 1920s with "Mein Kempf".

Putin has given hints that he wants to restore the USSR and sees the loss of power (and territory) by Russia as a tragedy.
Click to expand...
So you're ok with Russia taking Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania... All NATO members. You, therefore, are good with the US reneging on our obligations to NATO?
 
#79,643
#79,643
McDad said:
We signed a bad agreement and we are self-imposing urgency to fulfill the terms of the bad agreement. That about cover it?
Click to expand...
Here is a write up that outlines what was and wasn’t agreed to if you’d like to read it. But no I don’t agree with your short synopsis. We signed a very ambiguous agreement in which one of the parties gave up property of significant value and that party is calling due their understanding of what was agreed to. We never thought the bill would come due I’m guessing.

The real take away on this whole situation is this is exactly why we couldn’t be entering entangling agreements that aren’t any of our business.

Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was purposefully designed to be ambiguous to allow its signatories to achieve significant goals. It is an important tool in the discourse on the current war waged by Russia in violation of the memorandum.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and McDad
#79,644
#79,644
McDad said:
Do you know if the agreement outlines how much we are to give and the timeline involved?
Click to expand...

Here is the part of the agreement covering the security assurance or guarantee (whatever you decide to call it). IMO it was all parties assuring Ukraine that they wouldn't violate Ukraine's sovereignty and would appeal to the UN Security council should it be violated. No mention of aid, military force or anything like that. We assured Ukraine we wouldn't attack them.

It starts on page 192 through 205 so not a long read.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/v3007.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and McDad
#79,645
#79,645
NorthDallas40 said:
Here is a write up that outlines what was and wasn’t agreed to if you’d like to read it. But no I don’t agree with your short synopsis. We signed a very ambiguous agreement in which one of the parties gave up property of significant value and that party is calling due their understanding of what was agreed to. We never thought the bill would come due I’m guessing.

The real take away on this whole situation is this is exactly why we couldn’t be entering entangling agreements that aren’t any of our business.

Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was purposefully designed to be ambiguous to allow its signatories to achieve significant goals. It is an important tool in the discourse on the current war waged by Russia in violation of the memorandum.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
Click to expand...
Just started reading your link.
If Russia violated their part of the agreement I suppose that doesn't mean the agreement is null and void for all parties?
 
#79,646
#79,646
hog88 said:
Here is the part of the agreement covering the security assurance or guarantee (whatever you decide to call it). IMO it was all parties assuring Ukraine that they wouldn't violate Ukraine's sovereignty and would appeal to the UN Security council should it be violated. No mention of aid, military force or anything like that. We assured Ukraine we wouldn't attack them.

It starts on page 192 through 205 so not a long read.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/v3007.pdf
Click to expand...
Between you and ND40 this is turning into the college level course. This sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,647
#79,647
McDad said:
Just started reading your link.
If Russia violated their part of the agreement I suppose that doesn't mean the agreement is null and void for all parties?
Click to expand...
Actually nobody has withdrawn from the agreement to date. Russia is in violation but had not formally issued a notice of withdrawal. Neither has the US.

Pace yourself it’s a heavy read.
 
#79,650
#79,650
hog88 said:
Here is the part of the agreement covering the security assurance or guarantee (whatever you decide to call it). IMO it was all parties assuring Ukraine that they wouldn't violate Ukraine's sovereignty and would appeal to the UN Security council should it be violated. No mention of aid, military force or anything like that. We assured Ukraine we wouldn't attack them.

It starts on page 192 through 205 so not a long read.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/v3007.pdf
Click to expand...
Here's something from 40's link which has a different flavor that your post:

Additionally, Ukrainian and U.S. negotiators Borys Tarasyuk and Steven Pifer recalled that in the discussions about the Budapest Memorandum, U.S. negotiators promised orally that the United States would take a strong interest and respond to any Russian violations of the agreement or the “memorandum’s spirit.” While the United States’s verbal promise can be considered as an understanding of its commitments under the agreement or an oral security commitment adjacent to the memorandum, there is no public information about who made this specific commitment or about the precise scope of the response the U.S. negotiator had mentioned at the time. However, according to Pifer, who later served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, while the parties allegedly did not discuss details of the U.S. response under this commitment, in his opinion, the response should involve military assistance.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top