Giving up nuclear weapons.

[Renauda]

@George-K

There is no security guarantee contained in there that obliges the US to do anything in the event of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Certainly no military obligation to come to Ukraine’s assistance. At the very least diplomatic support. At the most the supply of defence technologies and economic sanctions. All of which the US has been doing since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

So I would argue that the US has lived up to its obligations albeit inconsistently and reactively. No coherent policy that would enable it to force Russia to listen and take a step back. This has always enabled the Kremlin to steer the events and the diplomacy around Ukraine as it wishes.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

@George-K

There is no security guarantee contained in there that obliges the US to do anything in the event of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

True. But it clearly states that the signatories will not use force against Ukraine.

Ah, well, it's just a piece of paper.

[Jolly]

See above...

[George K]

Also, from what you say @Renauda , it seems that the foreign secretary has a misunderstanding of the treaty as well.

[Renauda]

@George-K

My first sentence was that his statement was not quite accurate. I meant it too.

[George K]

@Renauda that was my point in my remark just above your latest.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

Also, from what you say @Renauda , it seems that the foreign secretary has a misunderstanding of the treaty as well.

Much more likely that he has a full understanding, but would prefer to twist to his needs…

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

Much more likely that he has a full understanding, but would prefer to twist to his needs…

Such a cynic you are.

[Jolly]

Positively slavic...

[Larry]

The one who promised to not use military force against Ukraine was Putin. His actions make him a war criminal.

[Renauda]

@Larry

I agree.