[barry-cotter]

>NATO-Russian relations are broadly defined by the Founding Act(1995)[0]. This calls for cooperation to achieve peace and security, and calls for respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of "all states." Both sides are alleged to have violated this over the years, NATO in the Balkans(Serbia-Kosovo), and Russia in the Caucasus.

As far as I'm aware the only thing Russia's done recently in the Caucasus was in Georgia. While Abhkhazia may be regarded as part of Georgia by the US/EU/West it has not been governed from Tblisi at any point since the fall of the Soviet Union. Another entirely accurate interpretation of the Georgian war was that Georgia took approving noises about it joining NATO from the US far too seriously, invaded Abhkhazia and was completely crushed by Russia.

Just goes to show you can't count on the US, like when Russia, the US and UK all agreed to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for it giving up its nuclear weapons to Russia when the Soviet Union dissolved.

[x0054]

> Just goes to show you can't count on the US, like when Russia, the US and UK all agreed to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for it giving up its nuclear weapons to Russia when the Soviet Union dissolved.

Not just US, UK was also part of that agreement, and they also have done nothing to help Ukraine. This is really disheartening because it just shows how much you can trust in these multinational agreements. Why should any other country ever trust US or UK ever again?

[sangnoir]

I'll play the devils advocate

> Not just US, UK was also part of that agreement, and they also have done nothing to help Ukraine.

Which 'Ukraine'? The government which was democratically elected (and deposed by protests) or the new government. Let's for a second imagine that the "Occupy *" movement was cozy with the Russians, and managed to topple the US administration of the time. Which America is NATO obliged to protect?

[x0054]

Regardless of legitimacy of the current government in Ukraine, which was democratically elected by now, even ignoring that, the actual agreed upon border of Ukraine has been breached by a foreign nation without provocation or aggression on the part of Ukraine. It's hard to argue that regardless of the current state of Ukrainian politics, this deserves action under that original agreement.

Think about it, after this, who would ever be stupid enough to give up nuclear weapons on the promise of US or UK?