this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
155 points (98.1% liked)

Ukraine

8205 readers
1341 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 29 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They had nukes. They got rid of them in exchange for assurances from Russia that they would leave them alone.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's essentially what it boils down to.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 16 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you got that wrong enough it warrants a correction...

They gave them up for assurances that Russia and the USA would protect them if they were attacked.

Edit: that's why the USA is giving them weapons, they're honoring the deal, or at least trying to, not 100% sure on specifics, I'm sure it was vague on what protecting them would entail.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So did you.

US agreed to bring it before the UNSC, not to protect them. Russia has veto powers.

'93 Budapest memorandum off the top of my head if anyone wants to look it up and bring the quote forward.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

wiki says

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".

what assistance would that not be if not protecting them in some way or another?

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

Strongly worded tweets?