Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Barrister]

Nato/EU are not going to intervene militarily in Ukraine, nor should they. Putin is not going to invade Ukraine either. Let's not overestimate Russia's power and influence.

The thing to keep in mind is NATO works based on self-defense of NATO members, it would actually be very crazy to say we have to defend a country that is not in NATO, and that we have no defense pacts with, simply because...they want to join NATO at some point, maybe? It's also not actually a good thing for Ukraine to join NATO and something we should never realistically pursue--for that reason I think it's probably worthwhile for Biden to make that clear to Putin to avoid an unnecessary situation. It really isn't in NATO's strategic interests to add Ukraine to the alliance.

It is true that Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and a (further) attack on Ukraine would not trigger Article 5.

But the US (and UK) are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which was signed upon Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.  They guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine, although it does not specifically spell out what to do in response.

But nevertheless if the US were to just completely abandon Ukraine, in particular so soon after abandoning Afghanistan, it would set yet another poor example of American leadership around the world.

[Sheilbh]

I mean Budapest went out the window following the first invasion and annexation of Crimea, no?

[The Brain]

Nato/EU are not going to intervene militarily in Ukraine, nor should they. Putin is not going to invade Ukraine either. Let's not overestimate Russia's power and influence.

The thing to keep in mind is NATO works based on self-defense of NATO members, it would actually be very crazy to say we have to defend a country that is not in NATO, and that we have no defense pacts with, simply because...they want to join NATO at some point, maybe? It's also not actually a good thing for Ukraine to join NATO and something we should never realistically pursue--for that reason I think it's probably worthwhile for Biden to make that clear to Putin to avoid an unnecessary situation. It really isn't in NATO's strategic interests to add Ukraine to the alliance.

It is true that Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and a (further) attack on Ukraine would not trigger Article 5.

But the US (and UK) are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which was signed upon Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.  They guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine, although it does not specifically spell out what to do in response.

Sounds like something the events of 2014 has reduced to history.

[Barrister]

I mean Budapest went out the window following the first invasion and annexation of Crimea, no?

I don't think so, no.

I mean clearly Russia's security guarantees are worthless, but US / UK are still signatories.  They did take several steps in 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea., citing in part Budapest.

[The Brain]

Belgians are considered worth fighting for. Ukrainians not so much, apparently.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think so, no.

I mean clearly Russia's security guarantees are worthless, but US / UK are still signatories.  They did take several steps in 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea., citing in part Budapest.

But surely a security guarantee isn't something that you can rely on/think is serious after you've already been invaded and part of your territory annexed and the response was sanctions? After that it's a bit of a dead letter, no?

[Tamas]

I don't think so, no.

I mean clearly Russia's security guarantees are worthless, but US / UK are still signatories.  They did take several steps in 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea., citing in part Budapest.

But surely a security guarantee isn't something that you can rely on/think is serious after you've already been invaded and part of your territory annexed and the response was sanctions? After that it's a bit of a dead letter, no?

Yes.

[Barrister]

I don't think so, no.

I mean clearly Russia's security guarantees are worthless, but US / UK are still signatories.  They did take several steps in 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea., citing in part Budapest.

But surely a security guarantee isn't something that you can rely on/think is serious after you've already been invaded and part of your territory annexed and the response was sanctions? After that it's a bit of a dead letter, no?

But those sanctions were imposed, and are still in effect.

[The Brain]

I don't think so, no.

I mean clearly Russia's security guarantees are worthless, but US / UK are still signatories.  They did take several steps in 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea., citing in part Budapest.

But surely a security guarantee isn't something that you can rely on/think is serious after you've already been invaded and part of your territory annexed and the response was sanctions? After that it's a bit of a dead letter, no?

But those sanctions were imposed, and are still in effect.

So from Russia's perspective it's in for a penny, in for a pound.

[Valmy]

Belgians are considered worth fighting for. Ukrainians not so much, apparently.

Belgians control strategically important channel ports...but considering how much trouble fighting the Belgians caused the Brits maybe it is understandable future fighting for other countries is less appealing.

[DGuller]

Belgians are considered worth fighting for. Ukrainians not so much, apparently.

Belgians control strategically important channel ports...but considering how much trouble fighting the Belgians caused the Brits maybe it is understandable future fighting for other countries is less appealing.

Poor Belgians, even their allies can't resist fighting them. 

[grumbler]

Belgians control strategically important channel ports...but considering how much trouble fighting the Belgians caused the Brits maybe it is understandable future fighting for other countries is less appealing.

Poor Belgians, even their allies can't resist fighting them. 

The British tried to waffle, and the Belgians proved superior at it.

[Valmy]

Belgians are considered worth fighting for. Ukrainians not so much, apparently.

Belgians control strategically important channel ports...but considering how much trouble fighting the Belgians caused the Brits maybe it is understandable future fighting for other countries is less appealing.

Poor Belgians, even their allies can't resist fighting them. 

Damn. I left out a word again. Fighting FOR! FIGHTING FOR THE BELGIANS!!111

[Valmy]

Belgians control strategically important channel ports...but considering how much trouble fighting the Belgians caused the Brits maybe it is understandable future fighting for other countries is less appealing.

Poor Belgians, even their allies can't resist fighting them. 

The British tried to waffle, and the Belgians proved superior at it.

Well no doubt they are the best wafflers in the world.

[Syt]

From the official Twitter account of Ukraine.