War in Ukraine

#79,777
#79,777
hog88 said:
We had security screenings pre 9/11 but pocket knives and box cutters were all allowed. We didn’t need the creation of an entirely new federal agency they just needed to add knives and box cutters to the prohibited list.
Click to expand...

And how many mass terrorist events has the TSA allowed since its creation?

Seems like the system is working.
 
#79,778
#79,778
MontyPython said:
And how many mass terrorist events has the TSA allowed since its creation?

Seems like the system is working.
Click to expand...

We had a guy get on a plane with a bomb in his shoe, thankfully it didn’t work. How many did we have pre TSA?

Nobody will ever again take over another US airliner with knives and that has nothing to do with TSA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#79,780
#79,780
McDad said:
I feel like everyone discussing this stuff knows something that I don't know. So if you (or anyone reading this thread) don't mind, walk me through this as if I'm brand new to the English language.

In that memorandum section, there are phrases which are not defined and can be interpreted many different ways. There's also reference to pre-existing principles agreed to at an earlier date. Setting those aside for a moment and looking at the rest of that section,
exactly what has the US guaranteed or assured?
Click to expand...
The post I first replied to that started this whole exchange went into Baker’s adamant rejection of using guarantee. I’m fairly certain it’s covered in the link I gave you also. Using words in binding international agreements like guarantee are reserved for things like Ariticle 5 in NATO which this memorandum is absolutely not elevated to that level.

And I’ve already answered that the first point references more than respect the territorial boundaries are explicitly stated. So attaching guarantee in the two non English language to the territorial boundaries looks very clear to me. I don’t know really sky other way to say it mcdaddio if we don’t agree on that interpretation that’s cool.
 
#79,781
#79,781
NorthDallas40 said:
The post I first replied to that started this whole exchange went into Baker’s adamant rejection of using guarantee. I’m fairly certain it’s covered in the link I gave you also. Using words in binding international agreements like guarantee are reserved for things like Ariticle 5 in NATO which this memorandum is absolutely not elevated to that level.

And I’ve already answered that the first point references more than respect the territorial boundaries are explicitly stated. So attaching guarantee in the two non English language to the territorial boundaries looks very clear to me. I don’t know really sky other way to say it mcdaddio if we don’t agree on that interpretation that’s cool.
Click to expand...
It isn't whether there is agreement or disagreement. I don't understand what others are reading in the memorandum and so far nobody has been able to elucidate. It's like we are so busy arguing assurance or guarantee, we've lost sight of what we are obligated to do.
I am trying to find out what, exactly, we are guaranteeing or assuring. I read your link in its entirety, this am. The author makes references to security of Ukraine. Whether treaty or memorandum or assurance or guarantee...I can only find two times 'security' or its derivatives are used in the memorandum.
The first is the last section prior to memorandum point number 1. ..."noting the changes in the world-wide security situation... This section is about the changes in world politics and the end of the cold war therefore drastically reducing nuclear arms.
The second is in memorandum point number 3. ..."and thus secure advantages of any kind"... This section is related to economic coercion and an acknowledgement Ukraine can exercise its rights inherent in its sovereignty to "secure"
advantages.

The rest of the memorandum basically states:
- affirm out commitment to Ukraine's independence and existing borders.
- refrain from threat or use of force against Ukraine
- refrain from economic coercion
- seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance should Ukraine become victim to an act of aggression
- refrain from using nukes on Ukraine unless Ukraine uses them as an attack
- our commitment to consult with the other signers if situations and questions arise concerning these commitments.

This is why I am so confused by the discussion. I mean, it doesn't matter because we are already sending aid. But I still don't see where that was ever part of the memorandum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#79,782
#79,782
McDad said:
It isn't whether there is agreement or disagreement. I don't understand what others are reading in the memorandum and so far nobody has been able to elucidate. It's like we are so busy arguing assurance or guarantee, we've lost sight of what we are obligated to do.
I am trying to find out what, exactly, we are guaranteeing or assuring. I read your link in its entirety, this am. The author makes references to security of Ukraine. Whether treaty or memorandum or assurance or guarantee...I can only find two times 'security' or its derivatives are used in the memorandum.
The first is the last section prior to memorandum point number 1. ..."noting the changes in the world-wide security situation... This section is about the changes in world politics and the end of the cold war therefore drastically reducting nuclear arms unnecessary.
The second is in memorandum point number 3. ..."and thus secure advantages of any kind"... This section is related to economic coercion and an acknowledgement Ukraine can exercise its rights inherent in its sovereignty to "secure"
advantages.

The rest of the memorandum basically states:
- affirm out commitment to Ukraine's independence and existing borders.
- refrain from threat or use of force against Ukraine
- refrain from economic coercion
- seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance should Ukraine become victim to an act of aggression
- refrain from using nukes on Ukraine unless Ukraine uses them as an attack
- our commitment to consult with the other signers if situations and questions arise concerning these commitments.

This is why I am so confused by the discussion. I mean, it doesn't matter because we are already sending aid. But I still don't see where that was ever part of the memorandum.
Click to expand...
Ok then I really don’t know what to say. From my perspective I look at more then the document itself it’s the whole context of what was given up. To me the document as written is ambiguous I believe you and hog say it is not. This we don’t agree. And as I’ve said over and over the purposeful ambiguity in using assurance in the English language version while using guarantee in the Russian and Ukrainian language versions is a glaring inconsistency when you consider what Ukraine gave up. As far as I’m concerned it isn’t our best look in international negotiations and Ukraine were morons for ever signing it.

To me, if you take the non English versions using guarantee and in point 1 reaffirm the existing territorial borders the intent was clear. That’s it to me it’s clear. If you don’t believe as written it passes that bar then we simply disagree. And so many times in here (and I did it myself) we argue that it says assurance and not guarantee. Well it only does that in 1/3 of the equally weighted language versions thus I find that whole argument disingenuous now. Again I myself made that same argument in the beginning. I no longer believe it to be correct.

So to attempt to answer your direct question I believe we tried to avoid guaranteeing anything. At all. However since we signed all three equal versions we in fact did guarantee the existing territorial boundaries of Ukraine in 1994. That’s a powerful statement and not even Ukraine has publicly made that claim not anyone in the government anyway. Because… everyone acknowledges what a lousy horribly written ambiguous document it is a can only assume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,783
#79,783
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok then I really don’t know what to say. From my perspective I look at more then the document itself it’s the whole context of what was given up. To me the document as written is ambiguous I believe you and hog say it is not. This we don’t agree. And as I’ve said over and over the purposeful ambiguity in using assurance in the English language version while using guarantee in the Russian and Ukrainian language versions is a glaring inconsistency when you consider what Ukraine gave up. As far as I’m concerned it isn’t our best look in international negotiations and Ukraine were morons for ever signing it.

To me, if you take the non English versions using guarantee and in point 1 reaffirm the existing territorial borders the intent was clear. That’s it to me it’s clear. If you don’t believe as written it passes that bar then we simply disagree. And so many times in here (and I did it myself) we argue that it says assurance and not guarantee. Well it only does that in 1/3 of the equally weighted language versions thus I find that whole argument disingenuous now. Again I myself made that same argument in the beginning. I no longer believe it to be correct.

So to attempt to answer your direct question I believe we tried to avoid guaranteeing anything. At all. However since we signed all three equal versions we in fact did guarantee the existing territorial boundaries of Ukraine in 1994. That’s a powerful statement and not even Ukraine has publicly made that claim not anyone in the government anyway. Because… everyone acknowledges what a lousy horribly written ambiguous document it is a can only assume.
Click to expand...

You're wrapped around the axle on those words. The reality is they are interchangeable in the context of this document because they only assure/guarantee what we won't do and in the event Ukraine is attacked what we will do and that is take it to the UN.
 
#79,784
#79,784
hog88 said:
You're wrapped around the axle on those words. The reality is they are interchangeable in the context of this document because they only assure/guarantee what we won't do and in the event Ukraine is attacked what we will do and that is take it to the UN.
Click to expand...
They absolutely are not interchangeable. We disagree.
 
#79,785
#79,785
NorthDallas40 said:
They absolutely are not interchangeable. We disagree.
Click to expand...

Why aren't they? How is "I assure you that I will not attack you or use economic coercion" different than "I guarantee you that I will not attack you or use economic coercion".

Nothing in that agreement assures or guarantees Ukraine that we will supply aid of any kind should someone else violate the agreement.
 
#79,786
#79,786
hog88 said:
Why aren't they? How is "I assure you that I will not attack you or use economic coercion" different than "I guarantee you that I will not attack you or use economic coercion".

Nothing in that agreement assures or guarantees Ukraine that we will supply aid of any kind should someone else violate the agreement.
Click to expand...
Now you are being disingenuous. As I have stated the context is “I assure to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders” vs “I guarantee to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders”. For some reason you always seem to ignore the explicit stating of the existing territorial borders, why?


IMG_3767.jpeg
 
#79,787
#79,787
NorthDallas40 said:
Now you are being disingenuous. As I have stated the context is “I assure to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders” vs “I guarantee to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders”. For some reason you always seem to ignore the explicit stating of the existing territorial borders, why?


View attachment 647743
Click to expand...

And? We have respected Ukraines independence and sovereignty and it's existing borders. We lived up to our assurance. Russia hasn't lived up to it's guarantee and our only obligation per the agreement is to take it to the UN.
 
#79,788
#79,788
hog88 said:
And? We have respected Ukraines independence and sovereignty and it's existing borders. We lived up to our assurance. Russia hasn't lived up to it's guarantee and our only obligation per the agreement is to take it to the UN.
Click to expand...
We disagree. Tell you what I’ll agree to your interpretation if we the US formally declare we withdraw from the agreement and return to Ukraine all of their property they surrendered how’s that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#79,789
#79,789
NorthDallas40 said:
We disagree. Tell you what I’ll agree to your interpretation if we the US formally declare we withdraw from the agreement and return to Ukraine all of their property they surrendered how’s that?
Click to expand...

You're reading into it what you want to read into it. The language is pretty clear.
 
#79,791
#79,791
GPxYtzHWsAEICUj
 
#79,796
#79,796
NorthDallas40 said:
Now you are being disingenuous. As I have stated the context is “I assure to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders” vs “I guarantee to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders”. For some reason you always seem to ignore the explicit stating of the existing territorial borders, why?


View attachment 647743
Click to expand...
Since Ukraine was attacked, according to the document is the remedy to go to the UN?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,797
#79,797
CobbVol said:
Since Ukraine was attacked, according to the document is the remedy to go to the UN?
Click to expand...
That is one of the points highlighted yes. And that is the argument hog is making. Ukraine very much wanted us to be their voice if needed and we agreed. We disagree in that being the only obligation when all three language versions are taken into consideration
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol
#79,798
#79,798
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok then I really don’t know what to say. From my perspective I look at more then the document itself it’s the whole context of what was given up. To me the document as written is ambiguous I believe you and hog say it is not. This we don’t agree. And as I’ve said over and over the purposeful ambiguity in using assurance in the English language version while using guarantee in the Russian and Ukrainian language versions is a glaring inconsistency when you consider what Ukraine gave up. As far as I’m concerned it isn’t our best look in international negotiations and Ukraine were morons for ever signing it.

To me, if you take the non English versions using guarantee and in point 1 reaffirm the existing territorial borders the intent was clear. That’s it to me it’s clear. If you don’t believe as written it passes that bar then we simply disagree. And so many times in here (and I did it myself) we argue that it says assurance and not guarantee. Well it only does that in 1/3 of the equally weighted language versions thus I find that whole argument disingenuous now. Again I myself made that same argument in the beginning. I no longer believe it to be correct.

So to attempt to answer your direct question I believe we tried to avoid guaranteeing anything. At all. However since we signed all three equal versions we in fact did guarantee the existing territorial boundaries of Ukraine in 1994. That’s a powerful statement and not even Ukraine has publicly made that claim not anyone in the government anyway. Because… everyone acknowledges what a lousy horribly written ambiguous document it is a can only assume.
Click to expand...
Is your first paragraph essentially saying: Ukraine gave up a lot and there is no way they would have done that without the expectation that Great Britain and America were going to provide protection, aid, military equipment. So even though there are no references to those items, we have a duty to meet Ukraine's expectation?

I agree affirming Ukraine's existing boundaries is in the memorandum. But where I get lost in the weeds is this...it seems once those boundaries were violated we (USA and GB) have some duty to assist in protecting those boundaries. (Kind of like the point of clarity I am asking about in my paragraph above)
 
#79,799
#79,799
hog88 said:
You're wrapped around the axle on those words. The reality is they are interchangeable in the context of this document because they only assure/guarantee what we won't do and in the event Ukraine is attacked what we will do and that is take it to the UN.
Click to expand...
Those words are not interchangeable in the other languages. At least according the link ND40 provided yesterday. You can't make that connection on the English standard and disregard that standard doesn't exist in the other language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,800
#79,800
NorthDallas40 said:
Now you are being disingenuous. As I have stated the context is “I assure to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders” vs “I guarantee to reaffirm our commitment to your sovereignty and existing territorial borders”. For some reason you always seem to ignore the explicit stating of the existing territorial borders, why?


View attachment 647743
Click to expand...
Isn't the reaffirmation about what is existing? And isn't the remedy outlined if the sovereignty and existing borders are violated to take it to the UN Security Council?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top