this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
434 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39083 readers
3522 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whotookkarl 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

There is no treaty that the US has with Ukraine that obligates the US to defend Ukraine. Stop spreading misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

It is technically not a violation, the memorandum just gives the US and the UK "the right" to intervene, but not the obligation...

[–] [email protected] 20 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] whotookkarl 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

  1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, Russia definitely broke their word here. I just don't see anything that says the US has to intervene.

[–] whotookkarl 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] whotookkarl 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] whotookkarl 1 points 22 hours ago

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.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago

I hope Europe is prioritizing appropriately. Seems they've been caught flat-footed in multiple ways and they're only slowly responding