Welp, there goes the civility. Nevertheless, I wish you a genuinely good day as well as some sense.
As for the actual argument in your comment: Why are you blaming the West for not following through on their security guarantees? A few comments back you had pointed out how stupid it were if they went to all out war against Russia. Why aren’t you blaming Russia for not following through on their security guarantees by, IDK, not invading Ukraine? Double-think…
Edit: Had forgotten to pull apart the quote from the paragraph beneath. Now corrected.
The west never offered any security guarantees to Ukraine and Ukraine keeping nuclear material was never on the table. So, your whole premise is utter nonsense. Meanwhile, Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing until the west overthrew the government in Ukraine in 2014. The only double-think here is you avoiding the elephant in the room.
They did though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content:
Russia, the UK, and the US agreed that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, not attack Ukraine except in self-defense, refrain from economic coercion, and immediately seek action in case another signatory attacks Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
I find it interesting that you insist on the Budapest memorandum being meaningless as an argument to defend Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Might as well play diplomacy like up to WW1 and enter wars over coffee and scones. What’s the point of this all if one hegemon just gets to invade their neighbors willy-nilly? If international agreements don’t have any meaning, then why the heck do we even make them? Why did Russia sign the memorandum? Maybe to buy time in their hour of greatest weakness and gather strength to subdue Ukraine 20 years later?
Yeah that applied when Ukraine was actually sovereign before the coup in 2014 by the west. Shock and surprise, Russia was not attacking Ukraine back then.
Welp, there goes the civility. Nevertheless, I wish you a genuinely good day as well as some sense. As for the actual argument in your comment: Why are you blaming the West for not following through on their security guarantees? A few comments back you had pointed out how stupid it were if they went to all out war against Russia. Why aren’t you blaming Russia for not following through on their security guarantees by, IDK, not invading Ukraine? Double-think…
Edit: Had forgotten to pull apart the quote from the paragraph beneath. Now corrected.
The west never offered any security guarantees to Ukraine and Ukraine keeping nuclear material was never on the table. So, your whole premise is utter nonsense. Meanwhile, Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing until the west overthrew the government in Ukraine in 2014. The only double-think here is you avoiding the elephant in the room.
They did though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content: Russia, the UK, and the US agreed that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, not attack Ukraine except in self-defense, refrain from economic coercion, and immediately seek action in case another signatory attacks Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
I find it interesting that you insist on the Budapest memorandum being meaningless as an argument to defend Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Might as well play diplomacy like up to WW1 and enter wars over coffee and scones. What’s the point of this all if one hegemon just gets to invade their neighbors willy-nilly? If international agreements don’t have any meaning, then why the heck do we even make them? Why did Russia sign the memorandum? Maybe to buy time in their hour of greatest weakness and gather strength to subdue Ukraine 20 years later?
Yeah that applied when Ukraine was actually sovereign before the coup in 2014 by the west. Shock and surprise, Russia was not attacking Ukraine back then.