« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Zelensky says, f*ck Trump

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 04 Mar 25 12:00 AM | 13 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 05003 of 05047
(This msg. is a reply to 04989 by ribit)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

ribit:

Re: “...Budapest Memorandum or did you forget again?”
It's true, I forgot about it in September. My memory's not what it used to be but I didn't forget it this time. Do you remember my response? Here it is again: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.








- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Zelensky says, f*ck Trump
By: ribit
in GRITZ
Mon, 03 Mar 25 10:37 PM
Msg. 04989 of 05047

What one post-Soviet nation wants to do to another post-Soviet nation is of little concern to me.  

...me neither, but like the potato chip commercial. Do ya think PUtin can stop with just one?

Ukraine wasn't one of our friends. 

...no, but maybe they could have been.

We had no agreement to defend it militarily.It should never have counted on us in the first place and we shouldn't have given it a penny.
 

...Budapest Memorandum or did you forget again?

Moreover, the war with Russia was not winnable by Ukraine and the Pentagon must have known that from the start. 

...first of all, everybody in the know said it would be over in a couple of days. Guess what?

All the fighting and money did was to slow Russia down while making it economically and militarily stronger. 

...Russia is not stronger economically nor militarily than it was before the Special Two Day Operation.

The thing that really ticks me off is that Russia COULD have been an ally of ours. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a golden opportunity and we BLEW it. China is and has been the real threat, not Russia. 

...I rather have a pet Cobra.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next