Replies

Show me the contract.

The Budapest Memorandum is not indeed a ratified treaty, but it is a document signed by our President (well, by Clinton...) and the UK's Prime Minister, and Yeltsin. Without a ratification it is not enforceable. Nevertheless it is an obligation the US undertook. Do we really want to put the aftermath of the Cold War into question? Do we want to debase our diplomatic guarantee in general, and still call ourselves the leader of the free world?

"...it is not enforceable. Nevertheless it is an obligation ..."
-

Do we want to debase our diplomatic guarantee in general, and still call ourselves the leader of the free world?

Not with this President.

I think it is important to remind those who may be new to the discussion that the "Budapest Memorandum" is where we* gave the Ukraine rather considerable security assurances in return for them giving up their nukes, of which they had quite a nice stash: The THIRD largest strategic nuclear weapons arsenal on Earth.

*Yeltsin signed on too, as mentioned, but I believe the memo specified agression by a nuclear power, and clearly Russia-in-the-future would be the #1 power the Ukraine would be concerned about.

As an aside, I would mention that of that arsenal, all the missiles were designed and produced in the Ukraine. They had something like 1900 strategic warheads and over 3000 other "nuclear munitions", plus all the delivery systems to boot. All were destroyed except a couple planes put in museums and a few planes traded to Russia for the Ukraine's gas debt.

There were other agreements also, such as the January 14, 1994 Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. Unilateral security assurances were provided by France and China as well.

In 2009, the US and Russia reaffirmed the security assurances to the Presidents of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. (Kazakhstan and Belarus also consented in 1994 to give up their nuclear weapons.) All this information is easily looked up on the web.

My point is that this was a MAJOR "Big Deal", and was absolutely something we should have done, and be unequivocably committed to, unless we wanted nukes strewn all over the globe.

(annalex, I am sure you are well versed in the history - I repeat it here for others.)

If we (NATO) do not come to the Ukraine's aid in some substantive ways -- massive equipment shipments for their reserves, for one thing -- and if Putin is not stopped at Crimea at most, any nation with security agreements with us will realize they are on their own. The result will be a nuclear arms race that makes our concerns with Iran look like peanuts.

There is not one single or group of people from the Ukraine, Russia, or Europe that can put one single bean or potato on my table.

Maybe not. But, my God, what tunnel vision. Good luck with your (or maybe your kids') glowing potatos and beans.