- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 14,242
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"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.
Kinda like inconvenient constitutions….Sadly, many treaties are just a piece of paper.
Worthless.
The Ukrainians were naive to believe that promise.
Oh, yes!Kinda like inconvenient constitutions….
Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war
Expect to hear more of this coming out of Ukraine.
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.
Can not imagine how many countries will be pushing nuclear armament the next decade.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.
I agree. I've been hollering about that since Crimea. It was wrong not to stop Russia then. We promised.Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war
Expect to hear more of this coming out of Ukraine.
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.I agree. I've been hollering about that since Crimea. It was wrong not to stop Russia then. We promised.
Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.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.
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..
You're right, we should've put boots on the groundWeak 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
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.Not boots so much but smart weapons. Stinger missiles, Javelin fire and forget ATGMs and the like.
Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.
Irrelevant to my point.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.
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.Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war
Expect to hear more of this coming out of Ukraine.
Ukraine never had nukes, and this never gave them up.Okay, but I don't think that's what Ukraine had in mind by 'defend' when they gave up their nukes.
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 problemsI agree. I've been hollering about that since Crimea. It was wrong not to stop Russia then. We promised.
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.
Ukraine never had nukes, and this never gave them up.
Zelenskyy representative blames U.S., other Budapest Memorandum signatories for Ukraine's war
Expect to hear more of this coming out of Ukraine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?