War in Ukraine

#61,403
#61,403
Orangeburst said:
I see hand on the Bible to support the USC all the time.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what to tell you dude. To date I haven’t seen any compelling counter argument that we have obligations to assist Ukraine when their sovereignty is threatened. And on reading the document there is no exit criteria or date on it. 🤷‍♂️

If you want to get really pissed off go read it but make sure you have a key handy for the Russian and Ukrainian documents also as there isn’t a single document in a single agreed to wording.
 
#61,404
#61,404
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t know what to tell you dude. To date I haven’t seen any compelling counter argument that we have obligations to assist Ukraine when their sovereignty is threatened. And on reading the document there is no exit criteria or date on it. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Did the Senate pass this or EO?
 
#61,411
#61,411
NorthDallas40 said:
There’s that US response that has us so beloved around the world!
Click to expand...

Tough cookies. As a diplomat one better.
You can hang your hat on blame political whims in DC when things go wrong

Looks at Afghan withdrawal.. Now that is embarrassing..Look at Vietnam well that is embarrassing. Look at Iraq well that is embarrassing

Good heavens.
 
#61,412
#61,412
Orangeburst said:
Tough cookies. As a diplomat one better.
You can hang your hat on blame political whims in DC when things go wrong

Looks at Afghan withdrawal.. Now that is embarrassing..Look at Vietnam well that is embarrassing. Look at Iraq well that is embarrassing

Good heavens.
Click to expand...
Sorry not buying into your personal bargaining on why we aren’t obligated. But if it makes you feel better the Ukrainians hate the agreement about as much as you do and largely consider us feckless in our response from 2014 up until at least the start of the war last year.

 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tvolsfan and Paper_Towel
#61,413
#61,413
NorthDallas40 said:
Sorry not buying into your personal bargaining on why we aren’t obligated. But if it makes you feel better the Ukrainians hate the agreement about as much as you do and largely consider us feckless in our response from 2014 up until at least the start of the war last year.
Click to expand...

The Big Q?

How are we obligated? By Treaty siigned by Congress or not?
 
#61,414
#61,414
4f22c8ef-a2a8-48e6-aa38-3e53e2d42f39_text.gif


arbys-arby.gif
 
#61,415
#61,415
Orangeburst said:
The Big Q?

How are we obligated? By Treaty singed by Congress or not?
Click to expand...
Hey I told you let’s just give their nukes back. That works for me.

You don’t want to believe we are obligated by the document we signed and nothing I say will change that. That’s fine by me.

I believe we are obligated and to date have not heard a compelling argument to the contrary
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#61,416
#61,416
NorthDallas40 said:
Hey I told you let’s just give their nukes back. That works for me.

You don’t want to believe we are obligated by the document we signed and nothing I say will change that. That’s fine by me.

I believe we are obligated and to date have not heard a compelling argument to the contrary
Click to expand...

My SS is obligated. LMAO
 
#61,420
#61,420
Orangeburst said:
You are beef..Hog is pork. Both delicious and full of iron(y)

Juts messing really. Geopolitics are a beetch
Click to expand...
Ah I wasn’t aware I’d been formally assigned to a protein category thanks for clearing that up. 😬

We don’t agree on this topic man and that’s fine. I’m definitely in the minority on thinking we’re obligated but like I said till I see a compelling argument otherwise I’ll stand pat that’s all. It isn’t all zero sum. Cheers bro
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#61,421
#61,421
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][46] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[45] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[46] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[47]Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[48] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[21]
 
#61,422
#61,422
China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents.
What are these?
 
#61,424
#61,424
Orangeburst said:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][46] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[45] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[46] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[47]Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[48] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[21]
Click to expand...
I’ve read it dude. Here give this a read. It’s by a Ukrainian international law scholar that practices in both Kyiv and the US. He isn’t a Homer his conclusion is that it’s purposely ambiguous so that each country can get what they want. He actually lists very damning wording differences I’ll submit. Our copy says security assurances. The Ukrainian and Russian version says security guarantees. That’s purposeful deception and feckless if it’s accurate and I haven’t found anything saying it isnt.

Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement
 
#61,425
#61,425
WBO said:
To a point that's going to work in Ukraine and it worked in the past for them, but you know, they don't really have the numbers they had in WW 2 and afterwards. Before WW 2 they could draw from Ukraine, Georgia and all the "stans" in Central Asia, all of which were under the Soviet control. After WW 2 they had the Warsaw Pact, some of whom were relatively enthusiastic allies. In the 80's we were told the Soviet Union was 425 million and back then we were around 250 million. Now the pure Russian population is 145 million and we are 350 million. The "stans" recently told Putin to get lost when he asked for troops.
Click to expand...

They also had millions of traumatized men and women with revenge on their minds, motivated to capture Berlin at all costs.

Now they have a bunch of people fleeing to avoid serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Hunerwadel and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top