War in Ukraine

[McDad]

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.

How can I even make a guess about giving up/retaining a nuclear weapons stockpile?

I think your experience in weapon systems would be a far better understanding than mine.

But the memorandum section doesn't say anything about US involvement.

 

[BeardedVol]

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.

We were worried about nuclear proliferation. Russians were selling anything not nailed down at the time, I'm sure it was the same in Ukraine.

You're right though, you don't give up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal without believing that what you are getting in return is worth the risk when you live next to Russia.

 

[McDad]

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.

I don't even think that matters.

Is the memorandum section the same in all languages?

 

[NorthDallas40]

We were worried about nuclear proliferation. Russians were sell anything not nailed down at the time, I'm sure it was the same in Ukraine.

You're right though, you don't give up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal without believing that what you are getting in return is worth the risk when you live next to Russia.

Yeah I know. But honestly Europe should have been way more afraid of the loss of control than we were. The UK should have had the lead.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don't even think that matters.

Is the memorandum section the same in all languages?

Oh I absolutely think it matters. Bullet 1 which Hog left off specifically references recognizing and respecting the existing sovereign boundaries of Ukraine. Attach guarantee to that and now it gets really dicey on the level of commitment

 

[McDad]

Yeah I know. But honestly Europe should have been way more afraid of the loss of control than we were. The UK should have had the lead.

America was concerned the nuclear weapons would be sold to terrorists, I assume?

 

[BeardedVol]

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.

I'd agree with if you the document weren't intentionally ambiguous, with different wording for the English and Ukrainian versions.

Which version takes precedent? The US version written in English with the word "assurances", or the Ukrainian version with "guarantees"?

Given that Ukraine gave up a nuclear arsenal by signing it, I'd say the latter given that they signed it based off of the language used in the version that they could actually read.

 

[McDad]

Oh I absolutely think it matters. Bullet 1 which Hog left off specifically references recognizing and respecting the existing sovereign boundaries of Ukraine. Attach guarantee to that and now it gets really dicey on the level of commitment

Ok. We recognize the existing sovereign boundaries.

What do you find fuzzy on the next paragraph?

 

[NorthDallas40]

America was concerned the nuclear weapons would be sold to terrorists, I assume?

Or other bad actors yes that is my understanding. NK, China, Iran, etc…

 

[BeardedVol]

Yeah I know. But honestly Europe should have been way more afraid of the loss of control than we were. The UK should have had the lead.

True, but given how many US service members were still stationed in Europe at the time, I don't think we were willing to trust the Europeans with keeping fissile material out of the hands of either of our enemies.

 

[McDad]

I'd agree with if you the document weren't intentionally ambiguous, with different wording for the English and Ukrainian versions.

Which version takes precedent? The US version written in English with the word "assurances", or the Ukrainian version with "guarantees"?

Given that Ukraine gave up a nuclear arsenal by signing it, I'd say the latter given that they signed it based off of the language used in the version that they could actually read.

Here's point 2. Where do you find ambiguity?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ok. We recognize the existing sovereign boundaries.

What do you find fuzzy on the next paragraph?

Here are the first three points hog left off. Attach guarantee behind them, hell bullet 1 alone, and in my opinion we are fairly committed. This is why Ukraine views us as welchers on the deal even while they are smiling to our faces and thanking us. In the link within the first couple of paragraphs you will see a “no more Budapest memorandums” comment.

 

[NorthDallas40]

True, but given how many US service members were still stationed in Europe at the time, I don't think we were willing to trust the Europeans with keeping fissile material out of the hands of either of our enemies.

Well we should have brought them home since the USSR had crumbled so…

 

[McDad]

Here are the first three points hog left off. Attach guarantee behind them, hell bullet 1 alone, and in my opinion we are fairly committed. This is why Ukraine views us as welchers on the deal even while they are smoking to our faces and thanking us. In the link within the first couple of paragraphs you will see a “no more Budapest memorandums” comment.

View attachment 647657

America's involvement stems from the undefined phrase, specifically..."commitment to Ukraine"...?

 

[NorthDallas40]

America's involvement stems from the undefined phrase, specifically..."commitment to Ukraine"...?

Honestly there is the phrase “with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act” also invoked and I haven’t honestly read that so…

 

[McDad]

Honestly there is the phrase “with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act” also invoked and I haven’t honestly read that so…

That's just great. It references something else and the principles thereof without citation, cross reference, or summary.

I hate politics.

 

[BeardedVol]

Well we should have brought them home since the USSR had crumbled so…

If I recall Russia at least paid Ukraine for the materials, since they could drop them into existing reactors and use them for fuel.

 

[NorthDallas40]

If I recall Russia at least paid Ukraine for the materials, since they could drop them into existing reactors and use them for fuel.

Both the US and Russia committed monies to the exchange. Ultimately that is what Ukraine wanted and needed at the time. Money. And I believe a good deal of the fissile material was reprocessed in Oak Ridge.

 

[hog88]

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

Pathetic, gramps.

They are all alike as in they violate the constitutional rights of Americans. Which I‘ve gathered isn’t a concern of yours.

 

[hog88]

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.

It doesn’t matter whether they used the words assure or guarantee since it was only assuring/guaranteeing each party would respect Ukrainians sovereignty. There are no assurances or guarantees beyond that.

 

[McDad]

It doesn’t matter whether they used the words assure or guarantee since it was only assuring/guaranteeing each party would respect Ukrainians sovereignty. There are no assurances or guarantees beyond that.

I don't even know why that's a big deal. Whether you use assurances or guarantees, it looks like all we have assured or guaranteed is that we respect their borders and if there's a threat we will get the UN Security Council to take action.

I don't know what else I'm supposed to read in there. Now the phrases "commitment to Ukraine" and the phrase that nd40 referenced are not defined...but those involving our aid or help seems a stretch to me.

 

[hog88]

I don't even know why that's a big deal. Whether you use assurances or guarantees, it looks like all we have assured or guaranteed is that we respect their borders and if there's a threat we will get the UN Security Council to take action.

I don't know what else I'm supposed to read in there. Now the phrases "commitment to Ukraine" and the phrase that nd40 referenced are not defined...but those involving our aid or help seems a stretch to me.

That’s the way I read it. We must be dumb.

 

[McDad]

That’s the way I read it. We must be dumb.

We may be. But I can understand how that lack of clarity could be taken another way.

A commitment to Ukraine could easily be seen as a commitment to their sovereignty and protection especially since they gave up their nuclear weapons.

 

[hog88]

We may be. But I can understand how that lack of clarity could be taken another way.

A commitment to Ukraine could easily be seen as a commitment to their sovereignty and protection especially since they gave up their nuclear weapons.

I think different people read into what they want to read into for various reasons. If I were employed in the defense industry or if I was hyper partisan and thought our aid was good for my party I might read it differently than I do. Kind of like science, gotta look at who’s signing the check to see where the results come from.

 

[MontyPython]

They are all alike as in they violate the constitutional rights of Americans. Which I‘ve gathered isn’t a concern of yours.

In times of national emergency, sometimes we sacrifice personal rights. It's reality, not my concern. Kind of like post 911 TSA security. Your personal rights are "comprimised".

I recognize your political slant abhors that.