War in Ukraine

[LSU-SIU]

Sorry. I'll be more clear. My question is in reference to this post from you. Particularly the bolded part.

Does that include US troops on the ground fighting if need be?

All those agreements are not worth the paper they were written on at this point anyway. Imo, the Russians will have to kill or push all those people into Europe, or this will just continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future and beyond. If new meat from outside the Ukraine wants to enter the fray, those too will have to be liquidated or extracted from the Ukraine.

 

[hog88]

@hog88 @BeardedVol

I read the pages hog linked. There isn't anything referencing aid. Nothing about timelines. And nothing about the US or other signers providing anything other than getting the UN Security Council involved.

I don't get the "ambiguity" in the document they claim. It's pretty clear to me.

 

[MontyPython]

The communist control act Ike signed was ruled unconstitutional.

Who cares. If FDR issued an EO banning pro-Nazi political parties in the US during WWII, you'd really have your panties in a wad, Sally? Pretty sure you'd have burning bags of **** on your doorstop every Halloween.

 

[hog88]

Who cares. If FDR issued an EO banning pro-Nazi political parties in the US during WWII, you'd really have your panties in a wad, Sally?

It would have been another unconstitutional act committed by him and everyone should have cared about that.

 

[CobbVol]

I don't get the "ambiguity" in the document they claim. It's pretty clear to me.

I think it is the 3 language thing with 1 saying assurances and the other 2 guarantees. The English version, which uses assurances, is all that matters to the U.S.

 

[hog88]

I think it is the 3 language thing with 1 saying assurances and the other 2 guarantees. The English version, which uses assurances, is all that matters to the U.S.

What's the difference in giving your assurance that you won't violate their sovereignty or guaranteeing you won't?

 

[McDad]

I don't get the "ambiguity" in the document they claim. It's pretty clear to me.

It kind of reminds me of a healthcare document like a radiologist report. There's a lot of technical stuff and then at the bottom there's a section of impressions where it summarizes the findings.

What you linked was kind of like that. Obviously there's a lot of written material in the several hundred pages but that section seems to clearly summarize what the agreement or Assurance is.

 

[MontyPython]

It would have been another unconstitutional act committed by him and everyone should have cared about that.

Oh man you fool. You woulda had your ass whooped repeatedly back in the day being a PRO NAZI in America during WWII. The crazy **** you say sometimes bruh.

 

[hog88]

Oh man you fool. You woulda had your ass whooped repeatedly back in the day being a PRO NAZI in America during WWII.

Only a mouthbreathing fool would think I was.

 

[NorthDallas40]

@hog88 @BeardedVol

I read the pages hog linked. There isn't anything referencing aid. Nothing about timelines. And nothing about the US or other signers providing anything other than getting the UN Security Council involved.

And I think you’re correct. Did you finish that analysis link I put up? Because as you’ll see the primary conclusion is the document was purposely ambiguous and even inconsistent in the single most important and most debated word in the whole document.

One person can read it and say we aren’t obligated to a damn thing. As I’ve said for me when you look at the whole picture for what they gave up I do believe we are on the hook for assistance but hell no on direct intervention IE boots ok the ground.

This is actually a shift of where I started on this whole fiasco. I was in the “assurances” camp too but after becoming a student of the whole historical record I absolutely believe we have a fairly strong obligation to assist. But not one single US military personnel…

 

[McDad]

And I think you’re correct. Did you finish that analysis link I put up? Because as you’ll see the primary conclusion is the document was purposely ambiguous and even inconsistent in the single most important and most debated word in the whole document.

One person can read it and say we aren’t obligated to a damn thing. As I’ve said for me when you look at the whole picture for what they gave up I do believe we are on the hook for assistance but hell no on direct intervention IE boots ok the ground.

This is actually a shift of where I started on this whole fiasco. I was in the “assurances” camp too but after becoming a student of the whole historical record I absolutely believe we have a fairly strong obligation to assist. But not one single US military personnel…

I haven't finished it yet, no. But do you think the way that document is put together those bolded sections at the end are an accurate summary of the intention of the agreement?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don't get the "ambiguity" in the document they claim. It's pretty clear to me.

Lol!

 

[NorthDallas40]

I haven't finished it yet, no. But do you think the way that document is put together those bolded sections at the end are an accurate summary of the intention of the agreement?

What bolded sections? In the analysis?

Edit: oh. In the memorandum. No I think the body of the document is largely toothless horse **** with regards to actual defined binding commitments. In fact the word that is the most hotly debated, assurances va guarantees, is actually in the heading/title. Again it’s a horrible document and Ukraine were idiots for signing it.

 

[MontyPython]

Only a mouthbreathing fool would think I was.

So you're saying with a straight face that'd you would have publicly supported the rights of PRO NAZIS to appear on ballots during American elections in WWII?!?!

And you call me the fool.

 

[hog88]

So you're saying with a straight face that'd you would have publicly supported the rights of PRO NAZIS to appear on ballots during American elections in WWII?!?!

And you call me the fool.

Yes and yes.

 

[BeardedVol]

@hog88 @BeardedVol

I read the pages hog linked. There isn't anything referencing aid. Nothing about timelines. And nothing about the US or other signers providing anything other than getting the UN Security Council involved.

Yeah it's poorly written, by design, that's been established.

Steven Pifer, who helped negotiate the Budapest Memorandum, disagrees with the narrow reading of the document, that the US is under no material obligation, other than to "not invade Ukraine", and that there would be no response should Russia break the agreement.

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum

The furor over President Donald Trump’s sordid bid to extort the president of Ukraine into investigating his potential 2020 political opponent raises an obvious question: Why should the United States care so much about Ukraine, a country 5,000 miles away?

www.brookings.edu

 

[MontyPython]

Yes and yes.

Your response: SUPPORTED NAZIS.

 

[McDad]

What bolded sections? In the analysis?

No. In the actual document and the pages you both linked. He uploaded a pic of it 2 or 3 pages back in the thread.

The memorandum section.

 

[hog88]

View attachment 647653

I suppose you were a big supporter of Trumps Muslim ban and FDRs internment of the Japanese Americans?

 

[McDad]

Yeah it's poorly written, by design, that's been established.

Steven Pifer, who helped negotiate the Budapest Memorandum, disagrees with the narrow reading of the document, that the US is under no material obligation, other than to "not invade Ukraine", and that there would be no response should Russia break the agreement.

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum

The furor over President Donald Trump’s sordid bid to extort the president of Ukraine into investigating his potential 2020 political opponent raises an obvious question: Why should the United States care so much about Ukraine, a country 5,000 miles away?

www.brookings.edu

I understand Steven was instrumental in the negotiations, but what's actually in the document > his opinion.

 

[MontyPython]

I suppose you were a big supporter of Trumps Muslim ban and FDRs internment of the Japanese Americans?

Banning political parties during wartime is, of course, nothing like imprisoning or banning ethnic races in our country.

Pathetic, gramps.

 

[BeardedVol]

I understand Steven was instrumental in the negotiations, but what's actually in the document > his opinion.

I'd say his 'opinion' of the ambiguity of the chosen language, and how it was portrayed carries more weight than most, given that he was in the room at the time of the negotiations.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No. In the actual document and the pages you both linked. He uploaded a pic of it 2 or 3 pages back in the thread.

I edited. Go back and read.

Ask yourself on reading that. Would YOU give up the worlds third largest nuclear weapons stockpile for those remarks alone?

And again if we had just been patient it all would have resolved without us stepping in it. Ukraine didn’t want to maintain the weapons they were broke too. It would have resolved without our meddling. But that agreement is their neckless of beads for Manhattan island.

 

[McDad]

I'd say his 'opinion' of the ambiguity of the chosen language, and how it was portrayed carries more weight than most, given that he was in the room at the time of the negotiations.

I understand why someone would hold that position. But having signed legal documents, I can tell you for a fact if it isn't the document it doesn't matter what I say is supposed to be in there.
I mean if we have some obligation of duty, the duty is outlined in the memorandum section of the agreement.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I understand Steven was instrumental in the negotiations, but what's actually in the document > his opinion.

Which document? The two that say guarantee or the one that says assurances.

Because if you provide guarantees of the recognition of the sovereign boundaries of Ukraine then that has teeth. Which is why our language version says assurances we would never sign that. But we did sign the two foreign language versions that say guarantee. It’s covered in that link I gave you. And yeah I pulled up Google translation and validated he assertions made in the link on assurance vs guarantee.