“Formally, the US is committed to aiding Ukraine against aggressors, as the US signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. And there are more treaties besides.
If such treaties arent honored, there is no longer any value in treaties. Its a very fundamental problem. On the other side of this lies madness.”
It is not a treaty. It was never presented to the US Senate for ratification so not binding on the US. Plus, it was a Bill Clinton promise, which makes it doubly worthless.
Isn’t this the guarantee Clinton made to Ukraine to convince them to give up their nukes? Look how THAT worked out!
“It is not a treaty. It was never presented to the US Senate for ratification so not binding on the US. Plus, it was a Bill Clinton promise, which makes it doubly worthless.”
Nonetheless, it WAS a signed agreement - signed by the Brits, the Americans, and the Russians.
If you really want to nitpick about it not being ratified by the Senate and therefore not being binding, perhaps you can remind the hard-of-thinking vatnik retard fan club contingent of faux conservatives posting here (from St Petersburg in all probability) that
1. the exact same argument therefore applies WITH BELLS ON to the “never even made it into a first draft let alone a signed agreement” stuff about James Baker SUGGESTING NATO expansion into the SURVIVING USSR and SURVIVING WARSAW PACT is even less enforceable.
2. And, logically, the agreement Yanukovych signed in Moscow in December 2013 without telling even Prime Minister Azarov, that turned Maidan into a full blown civil war in the Donbas (and which resulted in the Azarov government collapse!) is ALSO not binding, because Yanukovych was compelled by their Constitution to put the PROPOSAL from the Russians to the Rada for ratification BEFORE signing it. And he didn’t.