United States is offering Ukraine security guarantees for a period of 15 years as part of a proposed peace plan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday, though he said he would prefer an American commitment of up to 50 years to deter Russia from further attempts to seize its neighbor’s land by force.
Donald Trump hosted Zelenskyy at his Florida resort on Sunday and insisted that Ukraine and Russia are “closer than ever before” to a peace settlement.
Negotiators are still searching for a breakthrough on key issues, however, including whose forces withdraw from where and the fate of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, one of the 10 biggest in the world. Trump noted that the monthslong U.S.-led negotiations could still collapse.
44 Comments
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 116 pts · 264d
Ukraine gave up their nukes 30 some years ago after US and Russia agreed to both protect their security....
So this "security" promise is pretty hollow
hypna@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 264d
They promised to not attack them, not to defend them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Clearly Russia broke that agreement, but the US, UK, France, and China haven't.
AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 264d
Proving yourself wrong with your own source.
"1. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. "
To date, NONE of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum have ever requested an Article 4 session in support of Ukraine.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 264d
hypna@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 264d
Ukraine has been nuked? Or perhaps that's read as "used" as a threat. In any case, the point was that the previous agreements did not provide any defense guarantees.
And what is article 4 in relation to the UN security council? There have been several security council meetings on Ukraine.
ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 264d
Read a little more carefully...
experience an act of aggression OR be threatened with nukes. The first has occurred... it does not have to include being attacked with nukes.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 264d
I mean, we got both. Putin has implicitly and explicitly threatened nuclear strikes many times.
pupbiru@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 264d
it’s definitively ambiguous. you can’t say either way with only the english.
n0respect@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 264d
You need english classes
Any lawyers in here? Settle this argument
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 263d
Wow, stop giving them a hard time... the fact that there's disagreement here demonstrates the ambiguousness, he's just right.
AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 264d
Nice edit after the fact.
There have been Article 4 meetings on Ukraine, all brought (and signed on to) by member states that are NOT signatories on the Budapest Memorandum. None of those countries upheld their legal obligations to bring the matter to the security council.
These are all well-established matters of record on the UN website, and since you're willfully ignoring established fact, engaging with you on this is no longer productive.
Have the day you voted for.
AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 264d
Wow. Reading comprehension isn't your thing.
That two letter word between the two types of wars is "OR", and delineates two separate, but related, things.
pupbiru@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 264d
both of these readings are valid:
(should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used)
((should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression)) in which nuclear weapons are used
english is ambiguous in this case. don’t be dismissive of people for “reading comprehension” when it’s definitively ambiguous
AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 264d
BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 264d
It also bars economic coercion....
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 92 pts · 264d
There's also been a "ceasefire" in Gaza for over 2 months.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 41 pts · 264d
Trump got a soccer trophy for that. Goooooooooool! Gooolazo!
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 264d
One side isn't fighting.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 264d
If I can see it would be useless, certainly all of Ukraine can, too.
The U.S. will not go to war against Russia when they invade again. Everyone knows that. Only NATO has a chance of actually helping protect Ukraine from the next invasion.
evenglow@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 264d
Yup
TWeaK@lemmy.today · 21 pts · 264d
This includes the US. Basically, Russia is saying no one is allowed to actaully provide security for Ukraine, regardless of whatever paper promises are made.
evenglow@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 264d
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 264d
In situations like this, a punt can be the best plan.
Take a deal you know won't last, in the hopes before it falls apart you can join NATO/EU along with getting one on one treaties with a bunch of powerful countries who would be willing to join up.
It's hard to get that stuff signed when actively being invaded, because it immediately activates.
But even a single day pause is enough for other governments to get on board.
Source: Crusader Kings
village604@adultswim.fan · 8 pts · 264d
Also, they already have a guarantee of protection from us that we're blatantly ignoring.
kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 264d
Well, Trump won't be alive next time Russia will invade them again.
Eheran@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 264d
That either means the war just goes on a while as is and/or that Trump dies soon. Not sure I trust either one.
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 264d
If Russia actually waits 15 years. Or actually stops at all.
chocrates@piefed.world · 1 pts · 264d
Russia might only have to wait 15 days. I hear our dear leaders brain is dieing
village604@adultswim.fan · 51 pts · 264d
How is that different from the security guarantee we are already ignoring?
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 264d
Have you considered that this one might have the word "bigly" in it somewhere?
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 264d
There is no guarantee with trump in involved. The mans word is worthless.
Blade9732@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 264d
Exactly one year from now: " This was a bad deal, put in place by Biden and we just have to get it changed. See, the nucular is the problem and Obama knew my uncle ar MIT, so we can fix this deal that Biden created. I have told Putin to not invade while we pull all our troops and funding out to make sure that Biden's terrible deal gets fixed in two weeks. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! "
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 264d
Why do you think it'll take that long?
Blade9732@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 264d
Because Russia needs the year off to rebuild weapons and a functional army, well as functional as vodka and corruption can do.
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 264d
Pooters can always advertise for more American evangelicals to move there. "3000 rubles bonus if you bring your teenage sons!"
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 31 pts · 264d
And we all know what Trump's word is worth.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 264d
Didn’t they already have a security guarantee from the United States when they gave up their nukes?
lemming741@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 263d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
n0respect@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 264d
A 10,000 year guarantee would have just as much weight
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 264d
You can trust the American government, just ask any Native American. All of our treaties are still upheld…and strong…and *shot in the back.
AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 264d
...because we upheld the terms of the Budapest Memorandum so faithfully?
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 263d
They had a security agreement with Russia that said Russia would never attack if Ukraine handed over their nuclear arsenal. And we are where we are today because of that.
QProphecy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 264d
Don't trust them!
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 264d
Pinky promise?