The Few (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lethal aid and unprecedented sanctions aside, the Ukrainians might argue that the US isn't either.

They do have an argument, unfortunately. Hense why I said in the other thread they were somewhat being thrown under the bus.

I understand why the Agreement was signed, and I suspect that all parties new it was on paper only because NATO will never risk war with Russia. Too much is at stake.
 
Last edited:
The Nukes are gone. The Budapest Agreement in 2004 signed by the US, UK, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's defense and security if they gave up the nukes.

We see what Putin thinks of the agreement.

The Budapest Memorandum didn't offer security guarantees, it offered certain assurances to the nations concerned when they agreed to give up nuclear weapons on their territories.

Article four is most relevant. The signatories agreed to Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". That is a long way from a security guarantee and even further from any kind of mutual defence pact.

It's a worthless piece of paper, torn up by the Russian Federation.

The current problem is that Putin has made a gamble and is losing. When a gambler has already lost so much that he will go bankrupt unless he can turn it around, the logical thing for him to do is to continue upping the stakes. This is the desperate opponent the West may now face. The trick is to give Putin a way out without humiliating him and Russia, whilst being seen to save Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will be a difficult trick to pull off, and the stakes are very high. If Putin is to accept a negotiated defeat, he will require a fig leaf to hide the reality that he has failed to subdue Ukraine.
 
The Budapest Memorandum didn't offer security guarantees, it offered certain assurances to the nations concerned when they agreed to give up nuclear weapons on their territories.

Article four is most relevant. The signatories agreed to Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". That is a long way from a security guarantee and even further from any kind of mutual defence pact.

It's a worthless piece of paper, torn up by the Russian Federation.

The current problem is that Putin has made a gamble and is losing. When a gambler has already lost so much that he will go bankrupt unless he can turn it around, the logical thing for him to do is to continue upping the stakes. This is the desperate opponent the West may now face. The trick is to give Putin a way out without humiliating him and Russia, whilst being seen to save Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will be a difficult trick to pull off, and the stakes are very high. If Putin is to accept a negotiated defeat, he will require a fig leaf to hide the reality that he has failed to subdue Ukraine.

I always understand it as security guarantees. I agree its worthless though.
 
The current problem is that Putin has made a gamble and is losing. When a gambler has already lost so much that he will go bankrupt unless he can turn it around, the logical thing for him to do is to continue upping the stakes. This is the desperate opponent the West may now face. The trick is to give Putin a way out without humiliating him and Russia, whilst being seen to save Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will be a difficult trick to pull off, and the stakes are very high. If Putin is to accept a negotiated defeat, he will require a fig leaf to hide the reality that he has failed to subdue Ukraine.
I hope that Putin will accept such a agreement if it could be done but I doubt he will.
 
This is very well made.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back