what matters for the US is that the treaty if ratified by the Senate.
***Then we should never have worked with them to remove those nukes. We sold them down the river, offering soothing words in exchange.
If you know of a site that offers a fair-handed analysis of the Accord, please pass along.
***We are as fair as any other site. Think for yourself.
The Budapest Accord seems to be as noted not legally binding on the US. If that is the case, the US is not obligated to act via overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***That’s such pure bullshiite. We’re pushing the Ukes down a Nuke path by betraying them. The Agreement seems to be “legally binding” enough to allow 2 INVASIONS of their territory? Complete bullshiite. Once they get their own nukes in this existential war, there is no agreement or any reason why they shouldn’t vaporize several million Russians. All because pantywaist appeasers want to find loopholes in an agreement they were more than willing to accept the benefits of.
If the Budapest Accord was ratified by the Senate that would be a different situation. We don’t.
***Hey, when Pootypoot is looking at a nuke plume of one of his cities and the Ukes are taking credit for it, he will no doubt be blaming the US. And it will be much our own fault because if we had never removed those nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.
So at the very least, it seems problematic if the US could use the Accord to justify US overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***The Russians are Overtly IGNORING the sovereignty and borders provisions of that Agreement by INVADING the country twice. It appears all they have to do is not call it an invasion. So all we need to do is intervene and not call it an intervention or invasion. Just call it a military operation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case the sauce prevents a country from getting backed into an existential nuke corner.
Perhaps. And that is why this should have been ratified by the Senate. That’s why treaties are uniquely hard to ratify. Because they bind the US, often in the toughest of circumstances. The US did take the easy out, as did Russia, and Ukraine.
We are as fair as any other site. Think for yourself.
I certainly do think for myself. I take multiple, differing viewpoints and consider them.
That’s such pure bullshiite. We’re pushing the Ukes down a Nuke path by betraying them. The Agreement seems to be “legally binding” enough to allow 2 INVASIONS of their territory? Complete bullshiite. Once they get their own nukes in this existential war, there is no agreement or any reason why they shouldn’t vaporize several million Russians. All because pantywaist appeasers want to find loopholes in an agreement they were more than willing to accept the benefits of.
See my previous responses. There’s a reason why the Budapest Accord was not ratified by the Senate - it would not have been ratified. So, all parties need to operate going forward with the understanding that when the going gets tough, any one of the parties may decide that their own interests are so important that they may need to act differently.
Hey, when Pootypoot is looking at a nuke plume of one of his cities and the Ukes are taking credit for it, he will no doubt be blaming the US. And it will be much our own fault because if we had never removed those nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.
Undoubtedly correct. And also correct is that all parties took the easy way out, and are now sowing that decision.
The Russians are Overtly IGNORING the sovereignty and borders provisions of that Agreement by INVADING the country twice. It appears all they have to do is not call it an invasion. So all we need to do is intervene and not call it an intervention or invasion. Just call it a military operation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case the sauce prevents a country from getting backed into an existential nuke corner.
To me, this is not “if Russia can do it, so can we”. This is - “what is the US national security interest?” Thus far, I don’t see the compelling interest. You’re suggesting we should do so because what happens if the Ukraine gets nuclear weapons? Yes? No? We could be concerned about that for any number of countries.