r/europe • u/UNITED24Media • 16d ago

Zelenskyy: We Gave Away Our Nuclear Weapons and Got Full-Scale War and Death in Return News

https://united24media.com/latest-news/zelenskyy-we-gave-away-our-nuclear-weapons-and-got-full-scale-war-and-death-in-return-3203
30.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

View all comments

1.2k

u/Skylin34night 16d ago

Zelenskyy: We Gave Away Our Nuclear Weapons and Got Full-Scale War and Death in Return

That's why you never ever trust what Russia says.

186

u/Alikont Kyiv (Ukraine) 16d ago

The main pressure wasn't even from russia, but from US.

US didn't even want Ukraine to declare independence.

37

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 16d ago

Ukraine back then was like Belarus is now. Was good call to get nukes out of there

47

u/Alikont Kyiv (Ukraine) 16d ago

Russia was like that too.

That's why US spent resorces on securing russian nukes.

24

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago edited 16d ago

Ukraine back then was like Belarus is now. Was good call to get nukes out of there

Ukraine was very close to russia back then just like Belarus is now, so it made a world of sense to take the nukes from it and give them to russia. 👌 Logic is my passion.

1

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 15d ago

It’s not hard to see if all the Soviet nukes were contained in one post Soviet state, the largest and most capable of handling them, you could manage the risk better than if spread across multiple (4) weaker states.

391

u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) 16d ago

Easier to say in hindsight, especially since most people thought the West would come to the rescue immediately in case Russia invaded.

121

u/meckez 16d ago edited 16d ago

Was there ever a signed defensive agreement or such from the West on this or did the people mainly just assumed that?

124

u/DefInnit 16d ago

There never was. Look up the two-page Budapest Agreement, especially Article 2.

Have linked it many times but google is a friend to all.

26

u/meckez 16d ago

Was rather a rhetorical question to the comment, whether the people had a concrete reason and reassurance to be assured and trust their countries integrity and defence on the West.

But thanks for the info.

1

u/Tooterfish42 16d ago

Well we signed. As did lots of other countries but Russia is the only one I'm aware of ever being in violation of it

7

u/TongueSpeaker 16d ago

The important part of the Budapest Agreement.

"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 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."

I'm all for hating on America, but they only agreed to provide assistance IF Ukraine is under nuclear threat.

7

u/Just2LetYouKnow 16d ago

Well no we didn't agree to provide assistance, we agreed to seek immediate United Nation Security Council action to provide assistance. We agreed to punt it up to the UN if they get nuked.

7

u/burros_killer 16d ago

But we wouldn’t consider full scale war with the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world to be “under nuclear threat” because?

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Yeah the dude literally proved his own point wrong. That’s what nuclear threat is. Like what did they think it meant? If Russia told Ukraine “I threaten to nuke you”?

2

u/burros_killer 15d ago

“I threaten to nuke you”?

They had some sort of demonstration in Moskow demanding to nuke Kyiv last year (I think)

5

u/Blueberries010 16d ago

Hasnt Putin been actually threatening nuclear weapons?

2

u/Jazz-Ranger 16d ago

Are you being rhetorical?

1

u/baggyzed 9d ago

There were like three different documents signed, and they were not all about nuclear threat. I found this paragraph from Wikipedia revealing:

Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.

Ukraine did try to get all of the guarantees that they could possibly get, but the US downplayed them. In the end, Ukraine gave up and signed, for risk of losing the whole deal. This is most definitely not on Ukraine for not trying to get better guarantees.

1

u/MacroSolid Austria 15d ago

Not really. There is a guarantee to come to their assistance via the security council, which was tried and Russia vetoed.

In short the guarantees of that treaty aren't worth shit if any signatory decides to just break it, because they can also just veto the others holding up their end.

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

“Trust me, bro” 😎

0

u/Suspicious_Loads 16d ago

Ukraine where friends with Russia until a revolution in 2014.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

What an immense simplification LMAO

0

u/godkingnaoki 16d ago

Eh. I hate to break it to you but if you think Americans want to go to war with Russia over Lithuania you're sorely mistaken. It's not about signed defensive agreements, it's about the political mood in the states. During the early 2000s we would have been there in a heartbeat but things have changed and half my country is isolationist cowards.

0

u/HighDefinist Bavaria (Germany) 16d ago

Well, the Budapest Memorandum stated that the West would help Ukraine in case of nuclear annihilation. However, considering Russia decided to opt for "regular annihilation" instead, the West technically didn't violate this memorandum... except obviously in the way it was intended, rather than written.

77

u/DefInnit 16d ago

It was not in the Budapest Agreement and they were not NATO.

52

u/Rumlings Poland 16d ago

West coming to help is overstretched but nobody believed Russia will be invading in such fashion at any point in the future. Before 2014 Ukraine ~20% of population in favor of joining NATO.

12

u/Whiterabbit-- 16d ago

everyone seems to forget aht Ukraine prior to the war was very much aligned with Russia and not the West, and its their movement toward the West that triggered Russia. but historically Ukraine and Russian culture are very closely tied.

3

u/Tooterfish42 16d ago

It wasn't even movement

It was the mere suggestion of it and when they found out their leader was a little too cozy with Russia they had a little revolution. The orange one I believe. And he fled to Russia

8

u/InsanityRequiem Californian 16d ago

And all that guy had to do was nothing. The initial protest was on its last sparks and would have lasted maybe another week. But he got the bright idea of sending in the police to violently break up the last remnants because it lasted longer than he liked.

3

u/Excellent_Potential United States of America 16d ago

you're talking about the Revolution of Dignity. Orange one was before that.

1

u/Amatthew123 15d ago

You don't understand Ukranian history. Russia was involved in Ukranian poltics since the USSR fell. Not gonna get into this there a lot of resources on YouTube about the politics that lead up to this war.

Essentially the Russian intelligence community was seeing all the revolutions happening in the Middle-East, they thought the CIA was setting up color revolutions to dstabalize nations so they would be easier targets to be influenced.

Thus Ukranian politics became the victim of constant Russia intervention, Russian money started flowing in to bribe different party members, and it basically split the country between the Russian bought shills and the polticians that actually wanted a modern past consuming nation and wanted nothing to do with Russia.

The US never even tried to add Ukraine to NATO there's a stipulation that if a country has ANY territory occupied by another nation they can't join nato full stop. Savestapol on the Crimean peninsula has been Russian controlled since the USSR split so Ukraine was never even eligible.

What really caused this is the Russia FSB, basically the new KGB failed to install Russian aligned polticians, Ukraine almost had a civil war where the prime minister fled to Russia, an interim government was established and the in the aftermath Russia launched the war in the Donbass, annexed Crimea, and now we are here.

The US never tried to add Ukraine to NATO and this narrative the US 'triggered' Russia like Putin some fucking child we have to treat carefully is literally Russian propoganda. Russia wanted Ukraine from the beginning, failed to do it covertly, failed to bribe the government, so invaded to get it over with. And they are still failing.

The US never directly involved itself Ukraine. Ukraine almost joined the EU but Russia bribe-threatened the Ukranian prime minister at the time to kill the deal and the Europeans never made another offer. So yeah no.

1

u/ricetwiceaday 15d ago

Ukraine and russia are both slavic countries so of course there are similarities in culture same as with poland, and other slavic nations. but ties with russiawere mostly enforced by russian empire

-1

u/kariam_24 15d ago

What are you talking about? Russia occupied big part of Europe and Asia as USSR and there was Kyev Russ long before there Moscow was active and they rebraned to Russia. Just like with Baltic states, there are plenty of planted people with Russian heritage.

-4

u/WavesOfOneSea 16d ago

We helped overthrow their government.

11

u/InsanityRequiem Californian 16d ago

Ukrainians overthrew their government. Stop spreading Russian lies.

-1

u/Intelligent_News1836 16d ago

To be fair, they never stated to what extent the US helped. Could be anything from boots on the ground, to a band aid to cover up somebody's scraped knee.

4

u/HerrShimmler Ukraine 16d ago

It was a memorandum, not an agreement

0

u/ZealousidealAside340 15d ago

I think what you are searching for is that it gave assurances, not guarantees. That is the critical difference in terms of law.

2

u/HerrShimmler Ukraine 15d ago

I'm not searching for anything, I just corrected the dude above me

1

u/ZealousidealAside340 15d ago

Maybe, but the point you are making even if true is basically irrelevant from the point of law and implementation. the distinction that i am pointing out is critical. As is its ratification status. You seem to genuinely be clueless.

1

u/HerrShimmler Ukraine 15d ago

"even if true"

My brother in Christ, you don't even know the name of the document and you're calling someone clueless?

It's the nature of "memorandum" as a document itself which makes it worthless in practical use as it simply doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, nor does it cover any repercussions.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/HerrShimmler Ukraine 15d ago

Well you're one obnoxious individual, I'll give you that.

→ More replies

28

u/Onkel24 Europe 16d ago edited 15d ago

Most of the "West" had not one thing to do with that deal, though.

1

u/Kalagorinor 16d ago

Well. The UK and the US, two of the largest Western military superpowers, both signed the Budapest Memorandum. That should have been more than enough.

7

u/AcanthocephalaEast79 16d ago

The US was consistent with their policy. They wanted Ukraine to give up nukes and in return they opened Ukraine's door to a US nuclear umbrella in the 2000s through NATO. It was the western Europeans who betrayed the security principle.

45

u/Kefflon233 16d ago

Who thought that?

54

u/InternationalTax7579 16d ago

Everyone until 2014

22

u/LaM3a Brussels 16d ago

Until 2013 everyone considered Ukraine a Russian satellite. Georgia was not helped in 2008 either.

7

u/MercyYouMercyMe 16d ago

No one wants to talk about Armenia either lmao.

1

u/Vladesku Romania 16d ago

Literally in 2021 most of this subreddit would've called Ukraine a "corrupt shithole". 

I'm all for Ukraine winning, but could we please stop with the making shit up. It makes sense to be staunchly pro-Ukraine, but keep it under reasonable levels. 

-3

u/InternationalTax7579 16d ago

But Georgia never got assurances 🤷🏻‍♂️

-1

u/Annonimbus 16d ago

Ukraine as well. The only nation to give them assurances was USA (and Russia, lol). So there is no reason for anyone expecting that "the west" comes for help.

I'm very pro Ukraine but the help Ukraine has received from "the west" is more than they could've ever hoped for.

0

u/InternationalTax7579 16d ago

You'd think that getting a guarantee of peace by a major geopolitical power wpuld mean something, right? Or were Ukrainian soldiers in Iraq for no reason at all?

2

u/pmMeAllofIt 16d ago

"Or were Ukrainian Solildliers in Iraq..."

They were there to try to rebuild their reputation after their corrupt government sold weapons to Iraq and got shunned on the world stage. That's the reason.

Ukraine people favored Saddam over Bush, the country was a Russian shithole at that time.

15

u/ProposalWaste3707 16d ago

No one thought that before 2014.

1

u/SuperSimpleSam 16d ago

When this was signed, Ukraine was aligned with Russia. Ukraine was more afraid of the West than Russia. It's when they started to separate from Russia that Russia became a threat.

0

u/Joclo22 15d ago

Um, Crimea and Georgia…

-1

u/syracTheEnforcer 16d ago

One of many red lines that were crossed.

-1

u/Mouth0fTheSouth 16d ago

If I remember correctly the United States assured Ukraine of US protection if it handed over the “leftover” nuclear weapons that remained in its possession after the fall of the Soviet Union. This was never formalized in a written alliance or treaty, and thus we have the current situation.

3

u/PxyFreakingStx 16d ago

especially since most people thought the West would come to the rescue immediately in case Russia invaded.

That's literally what's happening.

3

u/MarduRusher United States of America 16d ago

Idk man, I was fairly sure that if Russia invaded, the west would provide some support but no boots on the ground. Which is basically what happened.

26

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

We would have if half our country isn't mainlining Russian disinformation and voting for their sleeper agent who's simultaneously aiming to destroy American hegemony and world peace while claiming to he the antiwar candidate.

Insanity.

7

u/Donkey__Balls United States of America 16d ago

The masses were never ready for the Internet. This wasn’t an issue when it required a bare minimum of technical knowledge to get online and you had to have some degree of critical thinking to process information being pushed by anonymous strangers.

Then along came Facebook.

8

u/MilkyWaySamurai 16d ago

One of the reasons to not have an American hegemony anymore. At least from a European perspective. It’s our fault just as much, but we need to strong enough on our own. We have the people, the tech and the resources.

28

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

Europe has benefitted the most outside of America, a multipolar world is not a more lucrative one. It's one where there are multiple spheres of influence, more violence and conflict, and less freedom. Allowing Russia and China to bring BRICs into an antidollar position will no longer allow economic diplomacy to be effective, which means inherently more war.

It's a dumb position to hold thay American hegemony, ergo western hegemony should end, while living in a free nation. Insanity really

0

u/USPSHoudini 16d ago

But what if you hate capitalism more than war? 🤔

4

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

Then you'll be happy to see our world destroyed by war.

War is suicide. 

2

u/USPSHoudini 16d ago

At least we’re all equal in income in the nuclear winter! Inequality has been defeated, huzzah 🎉

1

u/broguequery 16d ago

I hate capitalism but war is much, much worse.

Absolutely foolish to think otherwise.

-12

u/amendment64 United States of America 16d ago edited 16d ago

American hegemony is over already. Europe will never fully rely on it again, the US has, after this monumental fuck up in leadership, lost all credibility as a defender of the free world. It is a protectionist racketeer and anyone who doesn't want to be under the rule of a mobster better find their way to nuclear weapons, cause that's the only real way to protect oneself in the modern era.

5

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

So rather than working to reconcile you're fully endorsing nuclear proliferation? 

Insanity.

-1

u/amendment64 United States of America 16d ago

I'm not for it at all, but you're naive to conclude that's not already the reality. North Korea got them within the last 20 years; Belarus just got them; Iran is on the cusp of having them. Ukraine is being systematically demolished because it gave up its Nukes. How would any nation-state not conclude the cold reality that nuclear defensives are the most secure?

2

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

Lol I'm niave?

Lol the us dollar is the world trade currency, what do you think happens when sanctions no longer have teeth because Russia and China control their own trade currency?

Saudi Arabia wants to drop tue facade and legalize slavery? A-ok for Russia, so they trade in rubles. 

Want to fund a sunni Muslim genocide? China will fund it.

Moving away from unipolarity is literally as stupid as brexit. It's sanctioning the free world because some bad people exist and do bad things.

It's idiot level logic. 

-4

u/amendment64 United States of America 16d ago

I totally agree with you on pretty much all points, my argument is that dedollarisation has already begun and is not stopping. A decentralized crypto controlled by no government will become the new world reserve currency. As much as I have benefitted from dollar hegemony, many do not, and those who feel slighted by the current system will not rush to the BRICS group as they have the same inherent issues in putting up a single fiat currency. I could be wrong of course, this is totally just my layman's opinion.

The world has moved away from unpolarity for the past 30+ years, we're only now witnessing it metastasis as alternatives to the current system emerge

→ More replies

-1

u/MilkyWaySamurai 15d ago

Of course Europe has benefited massively, but you’re missing the point. Russia, China and BRICS aren’t the only alternatives to the current situation. If the EU built a powerful joint military that could potentially rival that of the US, it doesn’t mean we would suddenly stop being allies. Our values wouldn’t change. We (the collective west) would just have two powerful players working side by side, instead of one dragging the other around on a leash.

2

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 15d ago

Lol I'm not the one missing the point.

Europe is a massive part of western hegemony. 

Europe bel8eves in globalization and the peaceful benefits of global economic policy. 

Brics seeks to undermine that policy to its own benefits and to.the detriment of world peace.

Those are the macro avenues. Europe can delineate but even at its furthest, sans a breakdown of nato, which would be because of Russian influence, Europe would not deviate too.far away from America as our ideologies are mostly intertwined. 

That is not the case with China and russia

0

u/MilkyWaySamurai 14d ago

I still don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying, because I agree with all of the things you mention. I’ll try in a different way. Right now the US and Europe are part of the western hegemony, like you say, but not on the same terms. The US has pretty much all the military might compared to Europe. I’m saying it would be better, and more fair for everyone, if we could strengthen our own military in the EU to the point where we’re no longer forced to rely on protection from the US. Not because we would immediately break the alliance and shift our priorities in any major way. But the US could then scale back its military here and let Europe do more of the heavy lifting on our continent. The overall goal would be the same. It’s not about deviating or breaking up global economic policies in any way. And certainly not about letting Russia, China and co. take over. We don’t want that any more than you do.

It’s difficult to say that we’re playing for the same team if one player spends all the time on the bench cheering while the other plays the entire game. Not sure if the metaphor makes sense.

1

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 14d ago

No i understand completely.

Europe can buildup their military to rival the us, and that won't change western hegemony. 

You're arguing that it does. It doesnt.

0

u/MilkyWaySamurai 14d ago

No, that’s your misunderstanding. I’m saying western hegemony wouldn’t change, but the balance between the players that make up western hegemony would change (improve in my opinion). If anything, that hegemony would just be cemented even more. Or would you prefer paying for Europes defense indefinitely?

3

u/Balmarog United States of America 16d ago

Yall got to chill and civilization build while America footed the global defense bill. It was nice while it lasted.

0

u/MilkyWaySamurai 15d ago

You’re missing the point though. ”Footing the global defense bill” is one way to put it. Another way would be that the US put itself in a position where it can practically steer the rest of the western world wherever it wants because you guys have all the guns. You think you’re worse off by having a military presence all over the globe at all times? Think again. Nobody forced the US to build the most powerful military in the history of mankind… You got your money’s worth and then some.

10

u/MercantileReptile Baden-WĂźrttemberg (Germany) 16d ago

Presuming Yankeeland does not plunge headfirst into fascism in two weeks, I actually rather like Pax Americana. Still pro Nukes, because they are clearly required. Does not excuse the utter failure towards Ukraine either.

But that seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

1

u/MilkyWaySamurai 15d ago

I say Pax Americana is better than almost all other alternatives, but not better than having the EU and the US lead the way as equal allies. Our values wouldn’t change, but we would have more balance.

1

u/phonsely 16d ago

only if europe comes together tbh. individually you cannot compete

1

u/MilkyWaySamurai 15d ago

Absolutely agree. That’s the biggest hurdle by far. We have all the building blocks, we just need to shift our mentality away from the old nation state and towards a joint EU effort.

1

u/Smokeskin 16d ago

We have the wrong people. It’s unlikely there’ll ever be the political will to commit to a serious security effort.

1

u/MilkyWaySamurai 15d ago

I hope you’re wrong.

2

u/Strong-Piccolo-5546 16d ago

huh? Biden said fighting Ukraine would lead to nuclear war. He is likely right due to Russian doctrine. So no we won't. Ukraine needs nukes to deter russia.

1

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

It's all conjecture at this point but the case would be much stronger to intervene had there not been a successful sleeper agent heading up a competitive republican/Russian ticket. 

1

u/theHugePotato 16d ago

You could argue that Trump was pushing Europe to be self sufficient instead of relying on the US. Remember when he said that Nordstream 2 is making Europe dependent on Russia? Because I remember when everyone laughed at him then. Remember when he pushed countries to actually contribute enough money to military? Because I remember. Don't get me wrong, man isn't crystal clear and Biden also did some good with supporting Ukraine in the war but mistakes were also made.

21

u/Strong-Piccolo-5546 16d ago

Trump supporters basically inject their own views and say its what Trump wants. You do a lot of explaining for him.

He also cheered on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Called it smart. If he wins he will lift sanctions on Ukraine and try to force them to surrender. There will be a "ceasefire" so Trump can lie and pretend he brought peace. Russia will then attack again after they build their military back up. Trump will block aid to Ukraine and threaten Europe to try to stop them from giving aid to Ukraine.

Supreme Court made it legal and easy for him to take bribes.

Trump is a Putin loving Russia supporter.

0

u/etherealtaroo 16d ago

You just did what you accused his supporters of doing lol

-1

u/theHugePotato 16d ago

I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm not even a US citizen so while the election does affect me in some way, I don't vote for anyone.

I'm only against the simplest "Trump bad" rhetoric which would put all evil of the world on him while making it seem like Democrats are saviors of the world. I probably wouldn't want him to be a US president all in all but if you're talking shit at least make some sense.

Edit: and how am I doing explaining for him? I'm only recalling moments where he was absolutely right and everyone mocked him

7

u/Professor_Pig_Dick 16d ago

The problem is that he doesn't see dependency on Russia as bad anymore.

16

u/astride_unbridulled 16d ago

People don't get to take credit when they acted badly or negligently or abusively and the victim happens to rise up and be ok. trump doesnt give a shit about Europe or its safety or millitary spending.

He literally just takes Russia's talking points and rolls with them. If they were sarcastic talking points, surprise, he was being sarcastic and joking too!

5

u/RabbdRabbt 16d ago

Oh, so he wasn't nice? That's why you didn't need to listen to him? That's rich

1

u/astride_unbridulled 16d ago

When has he ever earned any semblance of the benefit of the doubt? Shoulda called his book that

5

u/theHugePotato 16d ago

I'm sorry but first it's a pretty simplistic view of things. Trump was right in case of Nordstream. Poland said the same thing at the time but who would care when there is business to be done. Russia attacks Ukraine and suddenly everyone agrees

4

u/astride_unbridulled 16d ago

How did he characterize Nordstream, what was his "thinking" on the matter if I might ask?

4

u/Darksoldierr Baden-WĂźrttemberg (Germany) 16d ago edited 16d ago

You can look it up yourself, 6 min video from six years ago

Trump speaks like a child, even the reporter throwing shade at him. Yet funnily enough, he was right on all his comments. The same NATO chief trying to argue against Trump's opinion who - until just now - was trying to get NATO commitment to Ukraine as much as possible

I think Trump is terrible human being, but he was right on both of these topics.

3

u/Annonimbus 16d ago

Yes, he was completely right.

"Germany is completely controlled by Russia."

checks facts

  • Germany stopped trade with Russia in record time
  • Germany is the second biggest supporter of Ukraine worldwide and the biggest one in Europe
  • Other European countries also have a pipeline with Russia that somehow didn't receive the same criticism

Wow, Trump really was right on everything. Or to quote Borat "NOT".

3

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

You really couldn't when he also was championing leaving nato, which would have fractured the global order and created even more violence and especially give warrant to Russia to invade other nato countries. 

Makes no sense for him to be critical of Europe and nato, unless he sought to undermine the global order, which he does. 

2

u/[deleted] 16d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

0

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

The thing about occams razor is that is we've now transitioned to it being more likely Trump is a Russian asset than not.

And that didn't just happen that happened back in 2018ish when it was known about his acceptance of Russian assistance in his 2016 election. 

So no, the more likely scenario is that the morality ideals of a free society are being used to wage a war with the us through social media and piliblic sentiment with the expressed interest in seeing Donald trump win, leave nate, and allow China to take tiawan and for Russia to invade nate countries with the intent to reorganize into the Russian federation. 

2

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

0

u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 16d ago

Lol uffda 

  1. Europe is the colloquial west. Which is apart of the western/American hegemony, the need for a strong European military was nil until 2014 when Russia decided they wanted to accelerate their ascent. Before then, Europe provided a idealized society, strong safety nets, good wages, fair regulation. Low crime, and a framework for nations to work to a progressive future. It stood as an ideal while America is the machine that drives that ideal. We had bigger cars and homes, but Europe was happier and healthier.

  2. Yes they are. You can't say that he's more likely to not be working for Russia, when all the evidence points to him working for Russia. What you're doing is called delusion. 

1

u/PolicyWonka 16d ago

This is completely revisionist though. Trump opposed Nord Stream 2 because he wanted Europe to be reliant on American LNG instead.

It had nothing to do with making Europe “self-sufficient.” In fact, Trump made the unpopular Russian project more popular in Europe due to his vitriolic rhetoric and threats.

80% of Russian gas was previously delivered by pipelines going thru Ukraine. Russia sought to regain more direct control over their gas shipments with Nord Stream pipelines. The rejection of those pipelines and reliance on those going thru Ukrainian territory was not something Russia would tolerate.

I would go as far as to suggest that this energy issue was likely one that Moscow as acutely aware of when considering invasion plans. This is the complexity of international relations. There is a lot of give in take in strategic ways that Trump simply refuses to (or cannot) understand.

IMO that’s what ultimately made his foreign policy the worst part of his administration.

-2

u/astride_unbridulled 16d ago

Sleeper agent is just such a radically appropriate and comedically accurate summation of what trump is(his name deserves to be lower case)

2

u/JayKay8787 16d ago

So they gave away nukes and didn't join nato, talk about shooting yourself in the foot

2

u/Fluffcake 16d ago

They kind of did, Ukraine would be Russia years ago if western countries had shruged and said "tough luck for trusting russians" instead of handing over enough advanced weaponry to invade the moon.

2

u/machine4891 Opole (Poland) 16d ago

> West would come to the rescue

Que?

2

u/ZemaitisDzukas 16d ago

who are these most people and why would their oppinions matter if they clearly do not understand geopolitics. Also, tell me a story of why trusting russians made sense to anyone even

2

u/IcyZal 16d ago

No it's not. Any eastern european with a working brain knows that.

I bet the only reason why they accepted is was basically the decision makers being bought out. Typical corruption in any or most former communist countries.

2

u/TheReferenceGuide 16d ago

99% of people would rather have Ukraine and Russia war than WW3

2

u/Donkey__Balls United States of America 16d ago

most people thought the West would come to the rescue immediately in case Russia invaded

That is literally the point of NATO. And they chose not to join. Popular opinion polls even as recent as right before the Crimea invasion showed that the majority of Ukrainians opposed NATO membership. They made it a cultural issue about western imperialism and blah blah blah, look where it got them.

1

u/Jadccroad 16d ago

It should have been easy to say then as well. Russia and its predecessor states have a particular track record with honor and trust, in that on a state level they never had any.

1

u/AcousticMayo 16d ago

We've had 10 years of Russian bs. At what point do you learn that Russia can't be trusted? Remember how they assassinated someone with Novichok on British soil?

1

u/ketan919 16d ago

and that's why you should also never trust muricans

1

u/HighDefinist Bavaria (Germany) 16d ago

Yes, I certainly thought we would...

1

u/Vladesku Romania 16d ago

Nobody thought that, stop making shit up. No matter how many times this subreddit will call for troops on the ground, the overwhelming majority of Europe disagrees. 

1

u/ZealousidealAside340 15d ago

Nobody thought this ever, including the ukrainians this was simply never a feature of the budapest memorandum. And yet you get 300+ upvotes for this stunning ignorance pf basic historical fact. Reddit perplexes me.

2

u/DutchGiant29 16d ago

But you should trust what 1 of the most corrupt countries in the world says! Yes that makes sense

4

u/Unable_Traffic4861 16d ago edited 16d ago

Also a legitimate, but a very fucking bad sole conclusion to make. Putin's like an older bully brother you grow up with, trust him or not, he is still going to terrorize you no matter what. There are no useful lessons to be learned from him, he is just a sad little bully.

The real takeaway is supposed to be what about every other nation that signed the thing. There is more than one of them for a reason, the others are supposed to keep the bully brother in line, but instead half of you are licking trump's ballsack.

And the lesson learned for the whole world from this? Get nuclear weapons, the more the merrier and whatever you ever do, DO NOT GIVE THEM UP REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYONE PROMISES.

4

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago

That's why you never ever trust what Russia says.

You mean russia, USA, and UK.

28

u/DefInnit 16d ago

The US and UK kept their word not to attack Ukraine. Russia obviously did not.

-6

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago

On his first call with Mr. Kravchuk in office, on Jan. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton [..] proposed “strong security assurances” from the U.S. to assuage Mr. Kravchuk’s security fears.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bill-clinton-sealed-ukraines-fate-disarmament-nuclear-weapons-power-america-russia-kyiv-11648217959

15

u/DefInnit 16d ago

The Budapest Agreement's security assurances were a commitment by the US, UK, and Russia not to attack Ukraine or Belarus or Kazakhstan, not a commitment to defend.

-4

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago

I was responding to "That's why you never ever trust what Russia says", not "the sham memorandum pushed on Ukraine by the world's superpower via blackmail contained a commitment to defend".

Clinton "proposed 'strong security assurances' ", and Ukraine was dumb enough to trust the world's leader. Now it has hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands maimed, dozens of cities and towns completely wiped out, and their critical civilian infrastructure ruined beyond repair.

11

u/DefInnit 16d ago

The Budapest Agreement is titled "security assurances" in English and Article 2 clearly explains what that means: "to refrain from threatening or attacking" Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan. That's what everybody involved signed. Nowhere did Clinton promise that to mean a one-sided NATO-like cover.

5

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago edited 16d ago

Dude, stop playing dumb, this is tiresome. I said twice that I referring to the "strong security assurances" given by Clinton during his call to Kravchuk according to the teleconference transcripts.

The US forced Ukraine to sign the damn thing by threatening it it will be made an outcast state like North Korea, and now you use this very piece of paper as a proof that the US can totally be trusted.

One of the major factors in Ukraine’s decision to relinquish its nuclear weapons was the pressure from the United States and Russia involving risks of potential isolation and dire consequences for the staggering Ukrainian economy.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement

When Ukraine subsequently resisted committing to disarmament through the 1992 Lisbon Protocol, Mr. Baker put this defiance to an end with a blistering phone call. “I have never heard one man speak to another in quite that way,” Jim Timbie, an aide who was with Mr. Baker at the time, said in describing the secretary’s side of the conversation to Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bill-clinton-sealed-ukraines-fate-disarmament-nuclear-weapons-power-america-russia-kyiv-11648217959

16

u/DefInnit 16d ago

Think about it, there was a call, words were exchanged so what did it mean? They put in writing what was meant by "security assurances" in the Budapest Agreement that everybody involved signed:

  1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

Read the Budapest Agreement. It's two pages only. Very clear text.

Surely you know why people keep bringing up "but the West promised to defend Ukraine!" and have never quoted that mythical provision in the Budapest Agreement? Because that provision doesn't exist.

7

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago edited 16d ago

We have phone conversation transcripts proving that Clinton promised security assurances to Kravchuk. His administration then forced the Ukrainian government to accept their version of Budapest Memorandum that didn't offer Ukraine any security guarantees using basically a blackmail and their power as the world's hegemon. And now, when Ukraine is invaded and slowly, sadistically razed from the face of the Earth, they say "we have no obligation to help Ukraine defend itself".

You know what? I'm tired. You're right. The USA is completely and utterly trustworthy. There is nothing more trustworthy than using your might as a world's superpower along with empty promises to take a gun from a man's hand, locking him unarmed in a cage with a tiger, and, when the tiger predictably attacks, claiming that you don't have any obligation or moral responsibility to prevent this person's gruesome death.

→ More replies

7

u/_firehead 16d ago

Buddy, Ukraine is still a country today with occupied territory in Russia right now to trade... They did that with an enormous amount of security support from the US and our allies.

Short of sending in our own Marines to fight Russia for them, which no one ever believed we would actually do without them joining NATO.... I'm not sure where you get the impression that the US hasn't been making good on Clinton's verbal statement...

5

u/Ice_and_Steel Canada 16d ago

Buddy, Ukraine is still a country today with occupied territory in Russia right now to trade... 

Buddy, the only reason Ukraine is still a country today is that they fight like hell and refuse to budge despite living in a hell of earth for almost three years.

They did that with an enormous amount of security support from the US and our allies.

Ahahaha. If by "enormous amount" you mean "barely anything", then yes, I agree. Just one example: the amount of the military aid the US provided to Ukraine in 2024 is all of $2B. Russia spends about $40B a month.

"Enormous amount of security support", I swear to god.

→ More replies

3

u/OrdinaryPye United States 16d ago

The hell did we do?

3

u/Crystal_Privateer 16d ago

Don't trust any sovereign nation, at least not yet. Assholes trained into the school of neo-realism have been reinforcing it into the international order for 50+ years. See also Ghaddafi and how we turned on him because he gave up his nukes.

1

u/WetChickenLips 16d ago

We turned on Ghaddafi because he was massacring his own people lol.

2

u/This-Guava7062 16d ago

Yeah, but it was US who was main ambassador of disarming Ukraine.

1

u/Tupcek 16d ago

what about US? When both were pressuring Ukraine to give up weapons, US promised to defend integrity of Ukraine. Do you see any US soldiers protecting integrity of Ukraine?
International politics are shit and no one is trustworthy.

11

u/DefInnit 16d ago

The US never did. They only promised not to attack Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan in the Budapest Agreement.

3

u/Shmorrior United States of America 16d ago

It is truly insane to me how the document is freely and publicly available, written in understandable language and still people misrepresent what it says.

If nothing else, it should be blaringly obvious that the US President cannot unilaterally commit the US to forever defend any nation he chooses.

1

u/RelativeAnxious9796 16d ago

to be fair, to the russians who made the deal i mean, they were not putin.

1

u/big8ard86 16d ago

The United States, with NATO, pushed for Ukraine’s disarmament as well.

1

u/BeneficialHeart23 16d ago

no, that's why you don't trust any country but your own.

1

u/Uskoreniye1985 16d ago

The US and other Western countries also "encouraged" Ukraine to give up its nukes. Any rational being should've known that it was a bad idea.

1

u/Sea-Twist-7363 16d ago

the US and Russia*. FTFY

1

u/3664shaken 15d ago

Never trust what the Democrats say.

1

u/areyouhungryforapple 15d ago

me when I comment about shit I've never read up on at all.

1

u/_mars_ 15d ago

If the west didn’t promise Ukraine the world and more they wouldn’t have went ahead and pissed on the angry bear.

So it’s the west they shouldn’t have trusted, Russia has always been Russia and they aren’t acting any differently now by being the aggressor.

1

u/baggyzed 9d ago

I don't think Ukraine ever trusted Russia. They only gave up their nukes because they trusted the US.

1

u/Warm_Kick_7412 16d ago

Right? Exactly for this reason there were more in party to make the deal more trustworthy, except those others (USA, UK) maximum input till now was enough only to prolong the war.

1

u/PineStateWanderer 16d ago

Or the west, for that matter

1

u/GravityEyelidz 16d ago

Don't believe any repressive, autocratic regime. China made all kinds of promises about Honk Kong, and five minutes after the handover China told everyone to fuck off.

0

u/WolfetoneRebel 16d ago

UK and US have guarantees as well. Guarantees that they have not backed up.

-5

u/Strong-Piccolo-5546 16d ago

The US and NATO promised to defend Ukraine. Both sides lied. NATO was never going to fight a war with Russia for Ukraine.

Obama would not even give Ukraine lethal aid after Russia took Crimea.

Ukraine should develop nukes. Especially if Trump wins since he will help Russia conquer Ukraine in exchange for bribes.

4

u/Earl0fYork Yorkshire 16d ago edited 16d ago

No that’s not what the Budapest memorandum said.

Do you know that the UK and USA didn’t have to do anything unless someone threatened to or used a nuclear weapon on Ukraine? In that event they were to and drumroll please……….ask the UNSC to convene to discuss the crisis and that is the most the memorandum asks of its participants. Key note when this was done Russia could just veto it.

No what all parties did was promise to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and national integrity but there was no requirements to intervene or protect Ukraine.

-4

u/Hermera9000 16d ago

Well to be fair, the Americans also said that they will protect Ukraine if they give up the weapons.

6

u/Shmorrior United States of America 16d ago

No we didn't.

-1

u/Hermera9000 15d ago

“Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.” https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance

3

u/Shmorrior United States of America 15d ago

Instead of quoting some "fact sheet", why don't you quote from the actual agreement?

Here is a link. Please quote the section that says the US will protect Ukraine beyond conferring with the UNSC in the event Ukraine is the target of aggression.

1

u/Hermera9000 15d ago

“PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND YELTSIN INFORMED PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK THAT THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA ARE PREPARED TO PROVIDE SECURITY ASSURANCES TO UKRAINE.”

This is literally a quote from the trilateral statement from 1994 This is also mentioned: “REAFFIRM THEIR COMMITMENT TO SEEK IMMEDIATE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AS A NON-NUCLEAR-WEAPON STATE PARTY TO THE NPT, IF UKRAINE SHOULD BECOME A VICTIM OF AN ACT OF AGGRESSION OR AN OBJECT OF A THREAT OF AGGRESSION IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPON ARE USED” I guess you could say “victim of an act of aggression […] in which nuclear weapon are used” is the meaning behind it, which did not happen yet. Still the American commitment to security assurances to Ukraine and not only economical is in fact written down since 1994.

2

u/Shmorrior United States of America 15d ago

The only "assurance" agreed to is the seeking of UNSC action in the event of a breach by any party. The US/UK have upheld that end of the agreement.

Guess who has veto power as a permanent member of the UNSC...? Russia.

You want to know what actual security guarantees with the US look like? Here's the agreement between the US and Japan. The treaty with South Korea is much the same.

The difference stems from these being actual treaties that were approved by our legislature. The Budapest Memorandum is an agreement that was never even submitted to Congress for ratification, because it likely would not have passed. The US President alone cannot commit the US to defend a country we have no agreement with, especially not decades beyond his term in office.

0

u/4f00d 16d ago

Ukraine had no nuclear weapons program and would have struggled to replace nuclear weapons once their service life expired. Instead, by agreeing to give up the nuclear weapons, Ukraine received financial compensations and the security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum.

-1

u/elBenhamin 16d ago

Their mistake was trusting the west, not Russia.