[cheema33]

> Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian.

This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.

This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

[_t9ow]

> We only promised to seek UN Security Council action

And ended up voting with Russia anyway.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Not back in 2022: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802

[pyrale]

Whether or not it's a misconception, and whether or not the US are faithful to the treaty while weaseling out of helping Ukraine, is irrelevant.

A treaty where the guarantor is known to give sketchy legal interpretations about why them backstabing you is actually faithful to the treaty they signed is barely more useful than a treaty where the guarantor won't honor their word.

The ripple effect is already there: many NATO country are now wondering whether the alliance is worth the paper it’s written on.

[areyousure]

You are correct that the Memorandum is rather short.

The promise to seek UN Security Council action is only in case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

That's not how I interpreted it: "...if Ukraine should become victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." I interpreted that as either conventional aggression, or threat of nuclear aggression.

The language does seem really ambiguous though. I'm surprised it wasn't written more clearly.

[jgilias]

Guess what.

It’s also a common misconception that NATO article 5th means immediate military action by rest of the alliance. It actually says that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against all, but crucially, the assistance provided is “what each of them deems necessary”

With the current administration I’m not convinced the US assistance that it’d “deem necessary” would amount to anything more than a call to Vladimir Putin to see how best to help him.