There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
> 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".
Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
> Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia.
Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
The US didn't end up in this position by fluke. It was a deliberate policy reaction to the nuclear weapons age. If you don't want everyone from Croatia to Canada equipping themselves with nuclear weapons and starting border skirmishes over water rights, the states that maintain a nuclear arsenal and international network of military bases have to step up and enforce the rules.
And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program.
With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.
>There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".
And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc.
Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
> Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.
Haven't they been proven right? What was the point of decades of military spending on Europe, all those bases and other expenses, if in the end, the US simply lacked the willpower to use them as intended to stop a Russian invasion and simply gave in to Russian demands without getting anything in return? The US is losing its superpower status without firing a single shot.
Heck yeah bro, we're owning the Europeans! What a win for the USA! Love basing our geopolitical policy, and breaking our honor in keeping commitments on that. So much winning.
The US provoked the war, the US can finish the war. It is that simple.
Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?
No, if the US considers it be a regional conflict, then that's all it will be in terms of repercussions or interests. Maybe in terms of vague geopolitical concerns that might be relevant decades from now, though even that is unclear, but the US is too powerful to have repercussions from not being involved in this conflict.
China and other countries don’t see it that way. They are looking for signals as to what they might be able to get away with, now that the US has decided that it chose the wrong team during the Cold War.
If China seizes Taiwan, we're going to do exactly squat about it. The best thing the USA can do in regard to that situation is stay quiet, and let the status remain unchanged without goading China into doing something to save face.
And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.
China would have seized it already if they were sure there’d be no US response. But if the US continues to wink at Putin’s crimes, they may change their mind.
You’re misapprehending the logic of the discussion. OP suggests that this is a regional conflict without implications for US interests (see their response to my comment if you think my interpretation is off). I said, “Really?” My questioning that claim doesn’t imply any commitment to the claim that the US must intervene in all conflicts that have implications for US interests.