• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war

Schism

Destroyer of Propaganda
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
7,597
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war
"They signed their obligation to protect Ukraine, to provide the security and safety," Fedir Venislavsky, President Zelenskyy's representative to Ukraine's Constitutional Court, told Fox News.

"Which means when Ukraine gave up its nuclear potential … Ukraine was confident the other countries who have signed all of those agreements were going to guarantee its territorial integrity, it's independence and it's sovereignty."

"Innocent people are dying every day simply because we believed that those countries were going to provide what they obliged for."

Venislavsky said the failure to protect Ukraine will have lasting consequences. "After the Ukrainian case, I think there are going to be a lot of doubts in the world regarding international obligations that are given in exchange for whatever concessions," Venislavsky said.

Expect to hear more of this coming out of Ukraine.
 
Sadly, many treaties are just a piece of paper.

Worthless.

The Ukrainians were naive to believe that promise.
 
I reckon The Russian Federation wasn’t mentioned…….
 
Sadly, many treaties are just a piece of paper.

Worthless.

The Ukrainians were naive to believe that promise.
Kinda like inconvenient constitutions….
 
Yep, but I don’t expect the US or UK to take any action on that basis. If that was going to happen it would have happened in 2014.

Agreed, the problem is that eats away at the empty promises of US foreign policy for security guarantees.

Other countries may seek shelter with the devil they know. Ukraine is going to have to make a deal with Russia they can live with.
 
Agreed, the problem is that eats away at the empty promises of US foreign policy for security guarantees.

Other countries may seek shelter with the devil they know. Ukraine is going to have to make a deal with Russia they can live with.
Can not imagine how many countries will be pushing nuclear armament the next decade.

The military complex will be raking it in for years to come selling every imaginable offensive and defensive armament..
 
I agree. I've been hollering about that since Crimea. It was wrong not to stop Russia then. We promised.
But they placed sanctions of Russia back then!!!! Some on this thread think they are new and wonderful tools that have never been used or failed before.
 
But they placed sanctions of Russia back then!!!! Some on this thread think they are new and wonderful tools that have never been used or failed before.
Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.
 
Can not imagine how many countries will be pushing nuclear armament the next decade.

The military complex will be raking it in for years to come selling every imaginable offensive and defensive armament..

Maybe that was the desired outcome?
 
Weak Obama (and VP Biden) allowed Putin to take Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. No consequences for Putin. Biden becomes US president in 2021 now stage two in progress.
 
Weak Obama (and VP Biden) allowed Putin to take Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. No consequences for Putin. Biden becomes US president in 2021 now stage two in progress.
You're right, we should've put boots on the ground
 
You're right, we should've put boots on the ground

Not boots so much but smart weapons. Stinger missiles, Javelin fire and forget ATGMs and the like.
 
Not boots so much but smart weapons. Stinger missiles, Javelin fire and forget ATGMs and the like.
The Ukrainian government was in disarray, the army was corrupt and barely functional, and the forces in Crimea themselves already defected or were surrounded. It was unfeasible to wrest away Crimea from Russia.
 
Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.


It was never their nukes in the first place. Saying the nukes stationed in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic belonged to the Republic is the equivalent of saying US Federal Government nukes stationed in Nevada belong to the state of Nevada. Ukraine never had operational control over the nukes. It was always under the operational control of the government in Moscow.
 
It was never their nukes in the first place. Saying the nukes stationed in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic belonged to the Republic is the equivalent of saying US Federal Government nukes stationed in Nevada belong to the state of Nevada. Ukraine never had operational control over the nukes. It was always under the operational control of the government in Moscow.
Irrelevant to my point.
 
Okay, can someone please cite the specific part of the memorandum where the U.S. unconditionally promises to send in the Marines if Ukraine is attacked by an outside aggressor? Because I can’t find it.
 
Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.
Ukraine never had nukes, and this never gave them up.
 
I agree. I've been hollering about that since Crimea. It was wrong not to stop Russia then. We promised.
It was morally wrong to ever allow the Ukies to have Crimea in the first place, “Ukraine” to the extent it’s even a real thing is at most a nation in the far west of the current state. The rest of it should’ve been carved up and given to Russian, a slice to Hungary, and a slice to Poland. Then we would have no problems
 
the fact is, if any foreign minister since the fall of Saigon at the latest has ever believed any promise made by the US government than they are on crack.

Help me out. I keep reading this memo, and I can’t find the part where we promise to send in the Marines if Ukraine is attacked. In any case, how could Bill Clinton promise to send in the Marines on behalf of the U.S. without a treaty rarified by the Senate?
 
Ukraine never had nukes, and this never gave them up.

They were on their territory. They possessed them. That’s why Clinton was sweating bullets about the country giving them up, which not everyone in Ukraine wanted to do at the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom