[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Excuse me. When the Ukrainians surrendered the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, they received “iron clad” security guarantees from the U.S. and U.K. in form of treaty obligations, equivalent to our mutual commitment to NATO. (NATO is not involved, since they are only required to respond to an attack on a fellow NATO country.) The very least we should be supplying the Ukraine is material, logistical and intelligence support.

[DesertRhino]

They did not get an iron clad treaty or a NATO equivalent promise. They got a promise from a president, that’s it.

[McGruff]

I can’t believe it but The Huffington Post has a informative article on your point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html

One part of it.

If the end goal of the U.S. is to isolate Russia by prying away its former Eastern European satellites, and destroy Russia’s economy further, tough talk and sanctions are the way to go.

But, this is very dangerous and may lead to unanticipated consequences.

Putin, a fervent nationalist, has been feeling under attack by pro-U.S. influences and economic power for some time now. The ring of pro-Russian countries that buffered the Soviet Union is almost gone. NATO is closing in on Russia’s territory. Twelve former Warsaw Pact nations and republics have joined NATO, a military alliance historically directed against Russia:

[mac_truck]

When the Ukrainians surrendered the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, they received “iron clad” security guarantees from the U.S. and U.K. in form of treaty obligations

Not only is this factually untrue, it misrepresents the nature of the relationship that existed between Russia, Ukraine and the West at the time.