[JumpCrisscross]

> There was never any promise like that

There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise.

Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1].

Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine.

[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

[arandomusername]

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense.

> 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".

Which they did.

[JumpCrisscross]

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).

[1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...

[absolutelastone]

This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility

If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.

[arandomusername]

4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both.

Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump

[JumpCrisscross]

> Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced

America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.

[arandomusername]

Again, it doesn't because America is not deciding for Ukraine. America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty.

[_DeadFred_]

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3ljnqjm...

'to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;'

The US is making any support contingent on a peace agreement that Ukraine doesn't want because it doesn't want to give up it's land.

[JumpCrisscross]

> America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it

Come on.

> because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty

We're treating their borders as violable in the negotations. That violates the deal. The fact that many Americans have jumped the shark when it comes to honest dealing sort of underwrites why we're no longer a reliable partner--we don't even know when we're lying.

[pqtyw]

Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.