Omnibus Russia Ukraine crisis
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I acknowledge that you need to talk about something else.
Let me remind you that he is currently sending almost $1 Billion directly to Ukraine to fight the communist state that you are tacitly defending when you detract from these efforts.
He is sending over $18 Billion in aid to Ukraine backed by Congress, what's that got to do with being tough on Russia?
Canada is sending 100's of Millions along with every free Western nations in the world
90% of the thread is made up of the C&P's don't like it go see the other 2 threads that I stay out of that just discuss the current Russo-Ukraine war
Security guaranteed by the US, UK and Russia for giving up their nukes
From your article
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2]
Except that it's "assurance", not a 'guarantee'.
Sure I get the point, the US has fucked up on its assurances according to the agreement, but calling it a 'guarantee' is a lie.
Also from the article (and bolded for you):
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[1] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[25][26]
No but they are involved in lots of shit that is conveniently ignored . Just wonder how far your virtue signalling reaches .
Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons on the guarantee that Russia, U.S. and the U.K. would provide security of their borders. They have reneged on that which is why Ukraine is fighting on their own. But that is fine as long as they're provided with the weapons they need to defend themselves.
This is how they work. They make up words, or make up definitions of words, and then scream that "the libs" lied or reneged.
The question that arises is. . . if conservatives represent most of "the people' and are physically, mentally, emotionally, and morally so vastly superior to "the libs," then why haven't they stopped all this chicanery, skulduggery, and EEE-vil "the libs" are doing? One can only conclude that they're either too stupid, too weak, or don't want to because they're profiting from the evildoing.
Anyway, back to the Russia Ukraine kerfuffle. There are three basic scenarios that could play out: a ceasefire and perhaps someday a peace deal; a protracted and bloody fight that could see Russia occupying part of Ukraine; or a wider war with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The last scenario is the least likely, albeit the one that’s received considerable attention in NATO countries. Zelenskyy has asked repeatedly for a no-fly zone, which would require western military intervention over Ukraine’s skies. While lawmakers and pundits have echoed this call, the U.S. and other nations have refused, arguing it could provoke a war with Russia.
Alexander Lanoszka, a University of Waterloo political scientist who has studied Russian warfare, says a fight with the West is a lose-lose proposition for Russia, even with its nuclear arsenal that could wreak horrific devastation around the world. (Nuclear war is another, albeit unlikely, possible outcome of the conflict.)
“Fighting NATO is absolutely certain death for Russia,” said Lanoszka.
So far, the member states of NATO, including Canada, have steadfastly refused to become involved militarily. While western nations have sent a steady supply of weapons to Ukraine, its primary actions thus far have been sanctions that put Russia at risk of economic collapse.
The remaining scenarios are confounded by a number of other factors:
apple.news
William Courtney, an adjunct senior fellow with the RAND Corporation, a non-partisan, non-profit American think tank, and former diplomat in Eastern Europe, said there is the risk of regime change within Russia because of military frustration, the effects of economic sanctions or perhaps popular protests and government infighting.
With Western weapons arriving, the effect of sanctions taking grip and the risk of war crimes charges against the Russian leadership, the callous calculus is that continuing the fight might be beneficial.
The rest of the article is that the link above
The last scenario is the least likely, albeit the one that’s received considerable attention in NATO countries. Zelenskyy has asked repeatedly for a no-fly zone, which would require western military intervention over Ukraine’s skies. While lawmakers and pundits have echoed this call, the U.S. and other nations have refused, arguing it could provoke a war with Russia.
Alexander Lanoszka, a University of Waterloo political scientist who has studied Russian warfare, says a fight with the West is a lose-lose proposition for Russia, even with its nuclear arsenal that could wreak horrific devastation around the world. (Nuclear war is another, albeit unlikely, possible outcome of the conflict.)
“Fighting NATO is absolutely certain death for Russia,” said Lanoszka.
So far, the member states of NATO, including Canada, have steadfastly refused to become involved militarily. While western nations have sent a steady supply of weapons to Ukraine, its primary actions thus far have been sanctions that put Russia at risk of economic collapse.
The remaining scenarios are confounded by a number of other factors:
What does Russia do next? Both sides in Ukraine have reasons to keep fighting and reasons to seek peace — National Post
'There are signs this conflict might end sooner rather than later. But I still think that it's going to draw out as we start seeing Russian military become increasingly a spent force'
William Courtney, an adjunct senior fellow with the RAND Corporation, a non-partisan, non-profit American think tank, and former diplomat in Eastern Europe, said there is the risk of regime change within Russia because of military frustration, the effects of economic sanctions or perhaps popular protests and government infighting.
With Western weapons arriving, the effect of sanctions taking grip and the risk of war crimes charges against the Russian leadership, the callous calculus is that continuing the fight might be beneficial.
The rest of the article is that the link above
So Serryah has come from not knowing any thing about Ukraine a year ago to listening to one guy on a video 3 weeks ago to an expert on Ukraine today. Here is an article written on the subject I posted earlier in the thread
But explain to me the difference between assurance and a guarantee?
In 1994, the US succeeded in convincing Ukraine to give up its nukes but failed to secure its future
by Jamie McIntyre, Senior Writer || January 13, 2022 11:00 PM
Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, along with President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, signed a trilateral agreement, brokered by the U.S., to transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination.
In return for becoming a nonnuclear weapons state as a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Ukraine would get financial compensation, economic assistance, and essential security assurances from the U.S., United Kingdom, and Russia recognizing Ukraine’s “independence and sovereignty” and specifying its existing borders could be changed “only peacefully by mutual agreement.”
Those assurances would prove worthless two decades later when Putin’s Russia illegally annexed Crimea and, through proxies, took control of the Donbas area of eastern Ukraine.
Here is a NPR article as well
Why Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons — and what that means in an invasion by Russia
February 21, 20225:16 PM ETThree decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.
Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.
In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.
Now, that agreement is front and center again.
Mariana Budjeryn of Harvard University spoke with All Things Considered about the legacy of the Budapest Memorandum and its impact today.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
On whether Ukraine foresaw the impact of denuclearizingIt is hard to estimate whether Ukrainians would foresee the impact.
It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought.
But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one.
And I think perhaps there was even a certain sense of complacency on the Ukrainian part after signing this agreement to say, "Look, we have these guarantees that were signed," because incidentally, into Ukrainian and Russian, this was translated as a guarantee, not as an assurance.
So they had this faith that the West would stand by them, or certainly the United States, the signatories, and Great Britain, would stand up for Ukraine should it come under threat. Although, the precise way was not really proscribed in the memorandum.
On whether Russia has respected the memorandum
Russia just glibly violated it.
And there's a mechanism of consultations that is provided for in the memorandum should any issues arise, and it was mobilized for the first time on March 4, 2014.
So there was a meeting of the signatories of the memorandum that was called by Ukraine and it did take place in Paris. And the foreign minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, who was in Paris at the time, simply did not show up. So he wouldn't even come to the meeting in connection with the memorandum.
[Russia argues that it] signed it with a different government, not with this "illegitimate" one. But that, of course, does not stand to any international legal kind of criteria. You don't sign agreements with the government, you sign it with the country.....More
Here is the actual agreement
s_1994_1399.pdf (securitycouncilreport.org)
Тристороння заява Президентів Укр... | on January 14, 1994 (rada.gov.ua)
Clause 1 and 2
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;