War in Ukraine

#79,801
#79,801
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...
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...
This is one of the key areas of my confusion. I simply don't understand how we went from reaffirming to a duty to perform once those boundaries were violated by Russia.

I feel like there is stuff in between these to points of discussion that everyone seems to grasp but I am clueless about.
 
#79,803
#79,803
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

My contention is that they are interchangeable when used with the accompanying language because per the actual verbiage used following "assured" or "guarantee" we have lived up to either. Now if the verbiage that followed was something like "we will defend you and your territory from outside attack or economic coercion" then yeah the words would mean different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,804
#79,804
NorthDallas40 said:
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
Click to expand...
hallelujah. I can feel clarity on the horizon for me.

Are there other (or different) obligations (specific duties to perfom) in the other languages in the FULL document and not just the memorandum section?
 
#79,805
#79,805
McDad said:
hallelujah. I can feel clarity on the horizon for me.

Are there other (or different) obligations (specific duties to perfom) in the other languages in the FULL document and not just the memorandum section?
Click to expand...

The memorandum is the full document.
 
#79,806
#79,806
hog88 said:
My contention is that they are interchangeable when used with the accompanying language because per the actual verbiage used following "assured" or "guarantee" we have lived up to either. Now if the verbiage that followed was something like "we will defend you and your territory from outside attack or economic coercion" then yeah the words would mean different things.
Click to expand...
I think that makes sense from our English-speaking perspective. The issue is the equivalent words in the other languages do not convey the same standard.
Example: Mile and Kilometer are both units of distance. We can agree we will travel several miles / kilometers to reach our destination. But we're going many more kilometers than we are miles to arrive.
 
#79,808
#79,808
McDad said:
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)
Click to expand...
Not quite as strong as you worded it but yes I believe for what was given up substantial value to Ukraine and us (nuclear proliferation) that has to be factored in at par value to any response by us. It’s worth more than “hey UN listen to what Ukraine has to say

I wish we had never entered this agreement. But at this point I view us as the azzhole insurance adjuster making pedantic points to try and disallow a claim. Nobody likes that SOB
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,809
#79,809
McDad said:
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?
Click to expand...
I hate to sound like a broken record but if we are guaranteeing those existing boundaries I think that comes with a call to direct action. That’s all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,810
#79,810
NorthDallas40 said:
Not quite as strong as you worded it but yes I believe for what was given up substantial value to Ukraine and us (nuclear proliferation) that has to be factored in at par value to any response by us. It’s worth more than “hey UN listen to what Ukraine has to say

I wish we had never entered this agreement. But at this point I view us as the azzhole insurance adjuster making pedantic points to try and disallow a claim. Nobody likes that SOB
Click to expand...
Ok. Thank you. This really helps me with the context with which I was struggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,811
#79,811
NorthDallas40 said:
I hate to sound like a broken record but if we are guaranteeing those existing boundaries I think that comes with a call to direct action. That’s all.
Click to expand...
NO. Dont hate to be a broken record.

Repeat as many ways as you can muster so I can understand better.

This post of yours is also helpful like the last one.
 
#79,812
#79,812
McDad said:
This is one of the key areas of my confusion. I simply don't understand how we went from reaffirming to a duty to perform once those boundaries were violated by Russia.

I feel like there is stuff in between these to points of discussion that everyone seems to grasp but I am clueless about.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think we are all trying to reconcile points not clearly defined. I include myself in that. But what I put for is a clear remedy to the situation is it not? To this point we have committed significant resources we can’t ignore that. And the level we have committed was never specified in detail. So if we want out then let’s formally withdraw
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,815
#79,815
McDad said:
hallelujah. I can feel clarity on the horizon for me.

Are there other (or different) obligations (specific duties to perfom) in the other languages in the FULL document and not just the memorandum section?
Click to expand...
What full document? It is literally five pages total for each language. That is all that was entered in the UN database. And that is a complete joke when you consider the capital referenced.
 
#79,817
#79,817
NorthDallas40 said:
I hate to sound like a broken record but if we are guaranteeing those existing boundaries I think that comes with a call to direct action. That’s all.
Click to expand...

Our assurance/guarantee was that we wouldn't violate those boundaries and if someone else did we would take it to the UN.
 
#79,819
#79,819
NorthDallas40 said:
Not quite as strong as you worded it but yes I believe for what was given up substantial value to Ukraine and us (nuclear proliferation) that has to be factored in at par value to any response by us. It’s worth more than “hey UN listen to what Ukraine has to say

I wish we had never entered this agreement. But at this point I view us as the azzhole insurance adjuster making pedantic points to try and disallow a claim. Nobody likes that S
Click to expand...
The "at par value to any response by us" is inferred or implied. Either implied by our man Pfifer doing the negotiating, or inferred by Ukraine's envoy. And because those were inferred/implied, Ukraine has come calling and if do ONLY what is specified in the document, we are now the bad guys because we negotiated in bad faith.

Is that close to your position?
 
#79,821
#79,821
McDad said:
The "at par value to any response by us" is inferred or implied. Either implied by our man Pfifer doing the negotiating, or inferred by Ukraine's envoy. And because those were inferred/implied, Ukraine has come calling and if do ONLY what is specified in the document, we are now the bad guys because we negotiated in bad faith.

Is that close to your position?
Click to expand...
It’s close but with some amplification. The Ukraine parliament approved a document stating guarantee. The US Congress never approved anything. Ukraine thought they had “guarantees” and we smiled and nodded and all signed the documents as written in their three languages with the glaring inconsistencies. That is a horrible look to me especially for what was surrendered. The three documents don’t even agree on when it goes into effect. It’s a horrible document
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,822
#79,822
NorthDallas40 said:
Honestly I think we are all trying to reconcile points not clearly defined. I include myself in that. But what I put for is a clear remedy to the situation is it not? To this point we have committed significant resources we can’t ignore that. And the level we have committed was never specified in detail. So if we want out then let’s formally withdraw
Click to expand...
I have complete agreement with you on this.

Whether we had a specified duty or an implication of action beyond UNSC action, it is really a moot point now. Why?...because we have provided aid and weapons. That aid communicates to the world we (the USA) ACTUALLY AGREEs with Ukraine's position we have a duty to provide assistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,824
#79,824
NorthDallas40 said:
Eh I don’t think there will ever be clear definition and that was the entire point.
Click to expand...
I have an intense desire to understand how others think even if I don't agree with their conclusions.

So, i am seeking clarity in your process and not necessarily agreement of definitions in the document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,825
#79,825
McDad said:
I have complete agreement with you on this.

Whether we had a specified duty or an implication of action beyond UNSC action, it is really a moot point now. Why?...because we have provided aid and weapons. That aid communicates to the world we (the USA) ACTUALLY AGREEs with Ukraine's position we have a duty to provide assistance.
Click to expand...
And it has been significant. And the degree of aid was never defined. So if we think we are done let’s formalize that stance. FTR I am not advocating for that I am just pointing to that as the obvious defined path forward if we want out
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top