[ghostwriter]

> Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?

The Budapest Memorandum was predicated on adherence to all prior agreements Ukraine would never see sovereignty without in the first place [1]. Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990: >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990) <<

[1] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text

[dragonwriter]

> Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990

The Declaration of State Soveriegnty of Ukraine isn’t an agreement signed by Ukraine, it was domestic legislation of the Ukraine SSR regarding its future plans at the time, more than a year before the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was passed.

[ghostwriter]

Yeah, I've already heard that you don't believe in succesion of power in Ukraine and that it enables everyone in the government to act at a whim of the moment as long as it serves the current agenda. Turns out that strategy doesn't work in real life.

[dragonwriter]

What I believe in is facts, and there is, in fact, a huge difference between an international agreement and an internal legislation setting general policy goals. You can’t cite a requirement to hold to past agreements and then cite as an example something that is not any kind of agreement.

[padjo]

So what military block did Ukraine join prior to Russia annexing its territory?

[ghostwriter]

Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join? Next, what was sovereignty of Ukraine predicated on in 1990?

[dragonwriter]

> Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join?

Putin had been successful in getting NATO to reject MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia before invading either (just before, in Georgia’s case), and that rejection had caused Ukraine to abandon NATO membership as a goal before Putin launched the war in 2014.

Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason. Putin’s war is literally the reason Ukraine has an intent to join NATO, not a response to that intent.

[ghostwriter]

> Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.

Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

[dragonwriter]

> let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003

That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.

> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq

2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.

[ghostwriter]

> That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.

You're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_anti-NATO_protests_in_Feo...

> 2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.

You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".

[lisasays]

You were asked a specific, yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

[ghostwriter]

The question is lacking historical context of the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 to be worthy of specificity you’re willing to hear. Welcome to the real world of messy politics that cost human lives, unless guided by level-headed leaders (that the modern Ukraine has been lacking since early 2000s)

[padjo]

Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed? It’s not barbarism it’s realism, might I’d right etc?

[ghostwriter]

> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?

Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.

[padjo]

So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?

[ghostwriter]

> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour

I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...

[lisasays]

In other words: "Yes".

[ghostwriter]

In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.

[lisasays]

"No", in other words.