Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #1250659
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
58261 Re: Secret Service exchange gun fire with subject attempting to shoot Trump
   >> guarantee vs assurandce ??? YGTBSM Good to know - I assure y... 		monkeytrots   6TH POPE   16 Sep 2024
 6:39 PM
58250 Re: Secret Service exchange gun fire with subject attempting to shoot Trump
   I don’t think that was a ratified treaty? Ratified by the Senate?... 		CTJ   6TH POPE   16 Sep 2024
 4:59 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Secret Service exchange gun fire with subject attempting to shoot Trump

By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 16 Sep 24 7:25 AM
Msg. 58245 of 58486
(This msg. is a reply to 58237 by ribit)
Jump to msg. #  

ribit:

Re: “...Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up their nukes for a promise of security against russian hostility by UK and US.”An excellent point. I'd forgotten all about it, so thanks. That was a pretty stupid agreement for the United States to have made without compensation, but make it we did.

About the Budapest Memoranda, Wikipedia says:

'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).' ... 'Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.'

So, unfortunately for Ukraine, The memoranda doesn't obligate us to provide military help. But perhaps the United Nations could intimidate Russia with its ability to declare Russia a pariah state . . . which Russia, with its unlimited right to "veto," would promptly reject. (The U.N. sucks.)

Was Ukraine foolish to have entered into such a toothless agreement? Maybe not. After all, the nukes it had were useless. Ukraine had physical possession of them but Russia had the codes. Ukraine didn't have the ability to do much more than sell its nukes to the highest bidder and perhaps find itself on the receiving end of similar (but armed) weapons. It apparently didn't want to do that.