- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the U.S., its primary military supporter, cuts funding.
Speaking to Fox News, he stressed the importance of unity between the U.S. and Ukraine as Russia accelerates its territorial gains.
Zelensky acknowledged Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield, despite new U.S. weapon supplies, including long-range missiles and anti-personnel land mines.
He criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for engaging with Putin, calling it a risky move.
Trump has pledged to end the war quickly but offered no specifics.
If US cuts funding it would be abandoning its allies in violation of the Budapest memorandum which the US signed in '94 to protect Ukraine if Russia invades, and that violation from Russia since 2014 also grants Ukraine back its nuclear program which should have been supported by allies like the US. The only language a dictator like Putin understands is violence or the threat of violence, look at the nuclear saber rattling he does frequently and how people and nations capitulate to it and the only neighbors they avoid are either nuclear armed or NATO allied.
Unfortunately the Budapest Memorandum doesn’t obligate the US to actually protect Ukraine.
Hopefully Europe can fill the gap left if Putin’s puppet cuts support US support
Europe unfortunately has neither the infrastructure nor the reserves to provide armaments in volume to Ukraine. It has only very recently started switching its military from being a small projection force for asymmetric warfare to a much larger self defence army. Completing the change will take some time though.
I hope Europe is prioritizing appropriately. Seems they’ve been caught flat-footed in multiple ways and they’re only slowly responding
Of course the letter of the treaty can be interpreted, what does “immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine” include in literal obligations? But the intent of the document seems clear that the signatories are there to hold each other accountable to prevent nuclear proliferation, if the guarantees are no longer valid like the repeated Russian violation of Ukraine sovereign borders, the other signatories are expected to either protect Ukraine or reinstate their nuclear arms.
Edit: including link to the document text https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
“seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”
That’s the strongest language I see, and that obligation could be filled by just pushing for Ukraine’s defense in the Security Council.
I think the US has been unfairly reserved in its support of Ukraine. They should have given jets, permission to strike in Russia, and more a long time ago. But I don’t think they’re obligated by that memorandum to do even what they have.
It is significant that all of the signing countries including Russia and except Ukraine were all members of the UN SC at the time and 3/5 of the permanent members states. It’s not like they’re getting on the phone to call someone else, they’ll be the same people answering the call to act to provide assistance.
It is technically not a violation, the memorandum just gives the US and the UK “the right” to intervene, but not the obligation…
Well, if it violates the Budapest memorandum of 1994, of course Trump will change his mind. /s
That aside, it only would kick in if Russia used nuclear weapons, anyway. Link to the text. The present effort is all about trying to keep Europe safe through deterrence, and to a lesser degree supporting a democracy that’s under attack.
The US may yet betray Ukraine and break its agreement under the treaty, I hope not but I don’t expect anything else from Putin’s #1 sycophant.
CSCE final act, not exclusive to using nuclear weapons: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Final_Act_of_the_Conference_on_Security_and_Cooperation_in_Europe
Yeah, Russia definitely broke their word here. I just don’t see anything that says the US has to intervene.
If I sign a treaty that says if someone really fucks you up me and my friends will definitely come help, and one of my friends that signed it comes by and keeps fucking with you because you don’t have the things you gave up in the treaty, then I think there’s a pretty large responsibility on me and the rest of my friends to come help. I think it would be a dick move to help awhile then walk away.
It doesn’t say the signatories will help, though, it just says they won’t hurt. To “respect” is a passive activity.
Is there something more specific in CSCE?
While true, this shit is 10,000% lawyer speak and weasel words. Every country is going to make nukes because guess what… they always needed them to protect their sovereignty.
No more fooling non nuclear powers that there is any “order” in this world. Just the strong crushing the weak.
Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was
Now playing Talking Heads - Once in a lifetime
I don’t think there’s any weaseling here. Clinton wasn’t about to start a nuclear war over Ukraine, and very deliberately didn’t enter a treaty that said that. Diplomats are famous for arguing endlessly over exact choice of words, even.
Nobody ever claimed international law was strong and inviolable.