A source within Japan's prime minister's office said Thursday that the country needs nuclear weapons, remarks that deviate from the country's long-standing non-nuclear principles and could trigger backlash at home and abroad.
Ukraine is the only nation to ever give up their nuclear weapons (after the dissolution of the USSR). At the time, they were assured by the world that their security would be provided for if there was ever a need.
I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn’t say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven’t used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.
There’s another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”. It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn’t do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don’t their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.
The point is Ukraine wouldn’t be in this position if they didn’t give up their Nukes, and they gave up their Nukes because they believed more would be done.
I’m talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you’re saying that those two countries didn’t do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.
Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn’t invade Ukraine.
They’re discussing the material factors that have led to the current situation. Lack of nukes is one of those, and it’s likely that Ukraine wouldn’t be under a state of defensive war at the moment had they maintained their nuclear arsenal.
Sure, if Ukraine had kept their nukes and maintained them, they might not be in this current position.
But anyway, I was responding to the post that said “they’re [Ukraine] in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”.
In my view that just isn’t true. Their current position is not “solely” because they put faith into western powers who haven’t delivered. Their current position is happening because the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine. I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine, but western powers didn’t make Russia invade Ukraine. It also seems to me that western powers probably have upheld “their side of the bargain” under the Budapest Memorandum, although like I say, I hope western powers do more to help Ukraine.
Actually it’s your post that doesn’t matter. If you actually read my posts, you’ll see that I originally was responding to this post:
Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they’re in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain.
I’m saying Ukraine’s current position is not “solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”. Two reasons for this:
Even if you think “western powers” haven’t fulfilled “their side of the bargain”, this wouldn’t be the sole reason for Ukraine’s position. Another probably more important reason is that Russia chose to invade Ukraine.
Arguably “western powers”, under the Budapest Memorandum, did fulfil “their side of the bargain”. The US and the UK (parties to the Budapest Memorandum) didn’t seem to commit to fighting a war if Ukraine came under attack. That being said, I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine at the moment.
Now do you understand it?
Edit: I was rude in this post originally but I’ve taken away some of the rudeness. To be honest, the post I’m responding to is incredibly rude. Clearly the person who wrote that DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE.
Ukraine is the only nation to ever give up their nuclear weapons (after the dissolution of the USSR). At the time, they were assured by the world that their security would be provided for if there was ever a need.
I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn’t say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven’t used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.
There’s another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”. It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn’t do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don’t their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.
Semantics.
The point is Ukraine wouldn’t be in this position if they didn’t give up their Nukes, and they gave up their Nukes because they believed more would be done.
I’m talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you’re saying that those two countries didn’t do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.
Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn’t invade Ukraine.
No one is placing blame here.
They’re discussing the material factors that have led to the current situation. Lack of nukes is one of those, and it’s likely that Ukraine wouldn’t be under a state of defensive war at the moment had they maintained their nuclear arsenal.
Sure, if Ukraine had kept their nukes and maintained them, they might not be in this current position.
But anyway, I was responding to the post that said “they’re [Ukraine] in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”.
In my view that just isn’t true. Their current position is not “solely” because they put faith into western powers who haven’t delivered. Their current position is happening because the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine. I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine, but western powers didn’t make Russia invade Ukraine. It also seems to me that western powers probably have upheld “their side of the bargain” under the Budapest Memorandum, although like I say, I hope western powers do more to help Ukraine.
Removed by mod
Actually it’s your post that doesn’t matter. If you actually read my posts, you’ll see that I originally was responding to this post:
I’m saying Ukraine’s current position is not “solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”. Two reasons for this:
Now do you understand it?
Edit: I was rude in this post originally but I’ve taken away some of the rudeness. To be honest, the post I’m responding to is incredibly rude. Clearly the person who wrote that DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE.