War in Ukraine

#79,826
#79,826
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
We as a people need to learn how to disagree in a civil manner again. Politics has never been zero sum it’s ludicrous to approach it now as such.
 
#79,827
#79,827
hog88 said:
Our assurance/guarantee was that we wouldn't violate those boundaries and if someone else did we would take it to the UN.
Click to expand...
This is how I read the document, too.

I am not considering the unspecified assumptions of the gravity or cost to Ukraine in voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons.
 
#79,828
#79,828
NorthDallas40 said:
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
Click to expand...
more clarity for me.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,830
#79,830
McDad said:
This is how I read the document, too.

I am not considering the unspecified assumptions of the gravity or cost to Ukraine in voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
They did a horrible negotiation job. As I said earlier those weapons were their Manhattan Island and that document is their neckless of beads.
 
#79,831
#79,831
NorthDallas40 said:
And existing territorial boundaries. You keep leaving that off.
Click to expand...
In a similar way of how I understand some of the assumptions (no negative connotation attached to the term) you've made about the other parts of the agreement.
I take it that reaffirming Ukraine's boundaries is not simply acknowledging their existing territorial lines. But it also comes with an implied or inferred duty to aid to help defend and/or restore those boundaries if/when violated.

Correct?
 
#79,835
#79,835
McDad said:
In a similar way of how I understand some of the assumptions (no negative connotation attached to the term) you've made about the other parts of the agreement.
I take it that reaffirming Ukraine's boundaries is not simply acknowledging their existing territorial lines. But it also comes with an implied or inferred duty to aid to help defend and/or restore those boundaries if/when violated.

Correct?
Click to expand...
Only if you are willing to accept 2/3 of the versions utilize guarantee vs assurance. If you reject any amplification by usage of guarantee then we have no defined obligations other than largely speaking on their behalf. As we’ve said it’s more by implication than definition. Which is ludicrous on a document at this scope of impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,837
#79,837
NorthDallas40 said:
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
Click to expand...
Of that, there is no doubt. There will be no specifics or parameters of aid on our side. We will support Ukraine for the next 100 years if politicians think it helps them get or stay elected. Furthermore, we will continue to provide even if other signers drop out or cap the amount of aid.

This is Bearded couldn't answer my questions. These things aren't clearly defined. In many ways, it's beyond the scope of the memorandum because we have connected the dots that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,838
#79,838
McDad said:
This is how I read the document, too.

I am not considering the unspecified assumptions of the gravity or cost to Ukraine in voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

The reality is Ukraine had to give up those nuke agreement or not. They couldn't afford to maintain them and they didn't have the codes to make them go boom, have them was just a burden they needed to be rid of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,839
#79,839
hog88 said:
The reality is Ukraine had to give up those nuke agreement or not. They couldn't afford to maintain them and they didn't have the codes to make them go boom, have them was just a burden they needed to be rid of.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. We should have just waited it out. But we are us so…
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,840
#79,840
NorthDallas40 said:
They did a horrible negotiation job. As I said earlier those weapons were their Manhattan Island and that document is their neckless of beads.
Click to expand...
Someone yesterday in passing said something along the lines of Ukraine was desperate for money and the cost of those nuclear weapons (or possible they said 'the cost of making those weapons viable and usable) was prohibitive for Ukraine.

What do you think?
 
#79,841
#79,841
McDad said:
Someone yesterday in passing said something along the lines of Ukraine was desperate for money and the cost of those nuclear weapons (or possible they said 'the cost of making those weapons viable and usable) was prohibitive for Ukraine.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Look up one post 😬
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,843
#79,843
NorthDallas40 said:
Only if you are willing to accept 2/3 of the versions utilize guarantee vs assurance. If you reject any amplification by usage of guarantee then we have no defined obligations other than largely speaking on their behalf. As we’ve said it’s more by implication than definition. Which is ludicrous on a document at this scope of impact.
Click to expand...
That seems clear. So just to drive home complete understanding on my end...if we reaffirm their boundaries and also make guarantees, then we ARE on the hook for defense of and restoration of once violated. Correct?
 
#79,845
#79,845
NorthDallas40 said:
I agree with you on this. We should have just waited it out. But we are us so…
Click to expand...
So if nukes were a burden on Ukraine, and essentially unusable as weapons, why do you give so much consideration to Ukraine giving up something of great value (which means we have an obligation "on par with what they lost")?
 
#79,846
#79,846
McDad said:
That seems clear. So just to drive home complete understanding on my end...if we reaffirm their boundaries and also make guarantees, then we ARE on the hook for defense of and restoration of once violated. Correct?
Click to expand...
I think that is ONE reasonable interpretation yes but even I balk at buying into guarantee and all that entails a la article 5 level of obligations I think it’s clear we never intended that level of commitment. But I do feel the intent of significant response is warranted based on the significant concessions. And as you’ve said yourself by our own response to date we clearly feel an obligation
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,847
#79,847
McDad said:
So if nukes were a burden on Ukraine, and essentially unusable as weapons, why do you give so much consideration to Ukraine giving up something of great value (which means we have an obligation "on par with what they lost")?
Click to expand...
So I disagree with this full assertion. At that specific point in time they couldn’t not have been launched but remember much of the USSR’s nuclear weapons program was in Ukraine. So that brain trust existed even if perhaps the will did not. And additionally there was obvious value to us, right or wrong, in not wanting to see those weapons migrate to other unsavory places. I’d bet my entire bank of volnation bucks a back room threat of “either you buy them or we will find someone who will” was made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#79,848
#79,848
NorthDallas40 said:
I think that is ONE reasonable interpretation yes but even I balk at buying into guarantee and all that entails a la article 5 level of obligations I think it’s clear we never intended that level of commitment. But I do feel the intent of significant response is warranted based on the significant concessions. And as you’ve said yourself by our own response to date we clearly feel an obligation
Click to expand...
Only America could help destabilize a whole region of the globe with an "in for a penny, in for a pound" philosophy.

LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,849
#79,849
NorthDallas40 said:
So I disagree with this full assertion. At that specific point in time they couldn’t not have been launched but remember much of the USSR’s nuclear weapons program was in Ukraine. So that brain trust existed even if perhaps the will did not. And additionally there was obvious value to us, right or wrong, in not wanting to see those weapons migrate to other unsavory places. I’d bet my entire bank of volnation bucks a back room threat of “either you buy them or we will find someone who will” was made.
Click to expand...
Ok. Not an unreasonable way of thinking about it retrospectively.

But we didn't buy them. We negotiated this agreement we've been discussing for two days. Right?
 
#79,850
#79,850
McDad said:
Only America could help destabilize a whole region of the globe with an "in for a penny, in for a pound" philosophy.

LOL
Click to expand...
That phrase is exactly what I was going to use a couple of times in this exchange. But I hate the “logic” behind it.

I will say when it comes to foreign aid the ROI in helping Russia disassemble itself is likely never to be exceeded even by all of out aid to Israel. However that’s a different discussion on whether we should be spending that money in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top