- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:45 pm to doubleb
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:45 pm to doubleb
Is the Memorandum considered a Treaty and thus has to be ratified by the Senate?
From what I can find, it was not considered a Treaty so not ratified.
If not, what really are the obligations of the USG?
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
From what I can find, it was not considered a Treaty so not ratified.
If not, what really are the obligations of the USG?
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
4
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:48 pm to CitizenK
they were likely speaking in KGB/FSB Orthodox days...
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:59 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Is the Memorandum considered a Treaty and thus has to be ratified by the Senate?
I don’t think it’s a treaty.
quote:
If not, what really are the obligations of the USG?
Good question. I’d say it’s up to the leaders of this country particularly the president to decide whether or not it’s a commitment that should be kept.
quote:
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
Again, it’s up to our leaders especially the president. Each agreement, memorandum, etc. stands on its own feet.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:03 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Is the Memorandum considered a Treaty and thus has to be ratified by the Senate?
From what I can find, it was not considered a Treaty so not ratified.
If not, what really are the obligations of the USG?
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
You are spot on here.
'Assurances' was used instead of 'guarantees' for a reason.
There isn't a document that exists anywhere that says any specifics on what we are obligated to do. It simply does not exist.
quote:
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
This is a great point as well. You don't see these "our word is our bond" dorks saying that about anything they disagree with
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:03 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Is the Memorandum considered a Treaty and thus has to be ratified by the Senate?
From what I can find, it was not considered a Treaty so not ratified.
If not, what really are the obligations of the USG?
If we say we must support Ukraine because the President signed it and to show that the US keeps it's word, does this then apply to other Memorandums that may not be popular - such as ones to do with "climate change" and "small arms trafficking"?
From what little reading I've done since I saw this a few minutes ago, it was an assurance not a guarantee. The signatories have no obligation to intervene but would be justified if they choose to do so.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:03 pm to doubleb
quote:
We didn't guarantee their sovereignty.
quote:
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.[1] China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
And still no guarantee of sovereignty in there.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:06 pm to doubleb
quote:
Good question. I’d say it’s up to the leaders of this country particularly the president to decide whether or not it’s a commitment that should be kept.
Key thing to note here, it wasn't a 'commitment' at all. There are no parameters specifying anything in terms of what we were obligated to do, or even if we were at all.
We assured them we would recognize their sovereignty.
I do believe there is a provision specifically about aggression involving nuclear weapons that is more clear.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:08 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
And still no guarantee of sovereignty in there.
It does leave it open to choosing to support them. What's the end game for the Western Nations? Why keep supporting it at great expense for two years? What do they know that we don't?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:11 pm to doubleb
And this is why I hate these types of vague agreements - we set ourselves up for bickering, rock-throwing and a higher likelihood of escalation and failure.
All that aside, it is clear that Russia violated that written Memorandum.
All that aside, it is clear that Russia violated that written Memorandum.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:18 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
It does leave it open to choosing to support them
We could choose to support them without the document
It just makes Russia's case that we are aggressors less convincing. I'm mainly concerned with the specifics of it because its often repeated in here that we have an obligation to Ukraine. We do not have an obligation to them, at all.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:21 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
All that aside, it is clear that Russia violated that written Memorandum.
They've violated several more agreements, such as the Partition Treaty on the Black Sea, The Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia and probably more. Both of those I mentioned specifically discuss Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. It's why I'm skeptical of any future agreement without very precise enforcement mechanisms, as I'm cynical about Russian compliance.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:29 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
And still no guarantee of sovereignty in there.
Russia is clearly not honoring their commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. They obviously broke their pledge not to use weapons against Ukraine.
And without Russia’s approval the UN csn do nothing on Ukraine’s behalf.
So far three presidents have aided Ukraine. Our aid had increased as Russia increased their attacks. With Trump coming back as president that’s where we are now.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:30 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
I'm mainly concerned with the specifics of it because its often repeated in here that we have an obligation to Ukraine. We do not have an obligation to them, at all.
Read the memorandum, and it outlines our obligations.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:33 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
You are spot on here.
Disagree... and here is why.
once you renege on one of these "agreements", then no one will even go through the pretense of negotiating one to begin with..
Of course I suppose if we wanted to back out of the agreement, we could simply hand over a couple of nuclear weapons to the Ukes and then tell them we are out.. and best of luck to you...
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:42 pm to klrstix
quote:
once you renege on one of these "agreements", then no one will even go through the pretense of negotiating one to begin with..
We've flipped flopped on multiple similar agreements going from Obama, to Trump, to Biden, and now will again when we go back to Trump.
This isn't your hometown's trusted mechanic with a relationship built on consistency, everyone knows that's how it works.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:43 pm to doubleb
quote:
Respecting Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders.
Refraining from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refraining from economic coercion that would compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Assisting Ukraine if it became a victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
There are no clear obligations there in terms of what we specifically have to do
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:44 pm to doubleb
quote:
Russia is clearly not honoring their commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. They obviously broke their pledge not to use weapons against Ukraine.
And without Russia’s approval the UN csn do nothing on Ukraine’s behalf.
So far three presidents have aided Ukraine. Our aid had increased as Russia increased their attacks. With Trump coming back as president that’s where we are now.
Thats all very interesting, and all still no guarantee of sovereignty.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:48 pm to doubleb
quote:Then we should declare war on Russia, go in, and clean house ... right? We have weapons to vaporize the Kremlin at the push of a button ... right?
Read the memorandum, and it outlines our obligations.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:49 pm to NC_Tigah
Why would we do that when there's a 90% chance that this war will be over by Jan 20th?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 3:22 pm to No Colors
Page 4280 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News