• we is doomed!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Pretty sure there’s no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid,

    The what now ?

    Like the rules Russia is following ? Tjerr are no rules, that myth explpded when Putin invaded Crimea.and the promised defence never occured. There was an actual ruke that Russia, the US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence.

    Waiting… FFS!

    • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      he US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence

      It’s not quite that simple. The wording (at least in English) was very carefully ambiguous, promising “assistance” if something happens but not quite a security guarantee, but it kind of sounds like a security guarantee.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

      Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members), while “security assurance” would simply specify the non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[18] In the Ukrainian and Russian version of the document, the wording “security guarantees” was used though.[20][21]

      #justclintonthings