Ukraine's security was assured via the Budapest Memorandum. You are decades behind on history and diplomatic agreements. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes under this memorandum, which Putin has violated.
And the interesting thing about this is that Russia is a member of NATO.
They most certainly are not.
“Ukraine’s security was assured via the Budapest Memorandum.”
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). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. But that does not fall under the mission statement of NATO as they are only to defend the countries that are members of the NATO organization (See their mission statement on their web site). Russia signed this and with Putin the country has violated this agreement. But it, also, does not fall under their membership code thus is not an action consistent with their ideals. How can they say they defend NATO allies only if they go further? All NATO can do is supply assistance, not be part of the wear itself. Yet they are supplying weapons, t3echnology, and instruction in their use thus arming the Ukrainians. Plus members of the UN are not allowed to in any treaty Arms Trade Treaty doced in April 2013 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. According to the three memoranda, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
There is nothing in there about supporting a civil war.
I stand corrected on Russia’s membership. NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect their members. Their official policy is that “NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to the Russian Federation.”
But because NATO has reached out to Russia consistently and publicly over the past 30 years I considered Russia and the NATO alliance partners. They worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning – even during periods of NATO enlargement. However, in 2014, in response to Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia.
Russia broke it. So did the Ukraine. But everyone that supplied arms and instruction violated the UN treaty. Take your pick.
wy69