[awesome_dude]

> Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.

There's been a change in the administration (and therefore strategy) of the USA, which changed the way the game was being played.

I think that (almost) everyone that has actual skin in that particular game also knows that none of the agreements that any of them make are reliable for a long term (I saw recently that the Ukranians gave up the Nukes they had at the behest of the US government, and on the.. I don't know if it was explicit, implicit, or just assumed.. understanding that the USA would provide some sort of security guarantee (which, of course, has never materialised)

[pydry]

Ukraine gave up its nukes in the same sense that Germany would "give up its [American] nukes" if it exited NATO.

They also had about as much latitude to keep those nukes as Germany would. Some people act like Ukraine owned and controlled the nukes and had a meaningful choice. They never did.

It wasnt given security guarantees either, it was given a promise that its independence wouldnt be infringed upon in a memorandum (not in a treaty).

As the Americans stated themselves in 2013 when they violated their promises within the Budapest memorandum, that memorandum wasnt legally binding. It was treated like toilet paper first by the Americans in 2014 and subsequently the Russians in 2014.

[no_wizard]

The US did not violate the Budapest memorandum[0]. That’s a false narrative from Russia and violated it when invading and occupying Crimea.

[0]: https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/budapest-memorandum-myth...

[pydry]

Your citation isn't. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. It doesn't back up what you said. In fact, it agreed with me on one key point which you just trashed as Russian propaganda:

>Absent the 1994 agreements, many seem to believe Ukraine could have maintained a nuclear arsenal. In fact, it would have encountered likely insurmountable challenges.

Here is where the Americans said "look, this memorandum isn't even legally binding" while they also try to pretend they didn't violate it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usem...

[usrusr]

They were Soviet nukes, not Russian. No different from the tanks and uniforms Ukraine inherited from the Soviet Union. Very different from the borrowed US and Soviet nukes both Germanies had in their inventories.

[pydry]

Ukraine didnt inherit the soviet nukes, the Soviet debts or the soviet seat on the UN security council either.

[XorNot]

Fair doesn't exist in international politics, and it's extremely obvious that handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

Whereas try collecting a debt from a nuclear power who's uninterested in paying it.

[bigbadfeline]

> handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

There was absolutely no way for Ukraine to keep the nukes, not only because both the West and the East/Russia were against it but more importantly, the powers that be in Ukraine had other plans.

Also, I wouldn't comment on a fait accompli unless doing so pointed to information important for understanding today's realities.

[pydry]

>Fair doesn't exist in international politics

Tell it to the people caterwauling about the budapest memorandum, not me.

>it's extremely obvious that handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

It's the furthest possible thing from obvious. Ukraine couldn't maintain the weapons and was in desperate need of economic assistance it would never have gotten if it kept the nukes.

Moreover, if they tried to keep them Russia would likely just have taken them or rendered them unusable by force and we likely would have supported that.

[awesome_dude]

When you edit your response, can you do so by clearly labeling your changes.

[awesome_dude]

Just FTR, I never said "its nukes" I said the "nukes that they had"