• Anoril@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Show me where it is written about “defend in the case of aggression”. At least in the page you linked there is nothing about it.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think “security assurances” means? The entire article is about this very thing and which countries agreed to provide these assurances.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s even more interesting to look at it from the other side: if “security assurances” does not include “defend in the case of aggression” what else is there that could possibly qualify as a “security assurance”?! A warning sternly delivered with a strong finger wagging???!

    • bucho@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are entirely correct that the agreement itself did not obligate the US to take any action in the case of aggression against Ukraine unless it included the use of nuclear weapons. However, the main point of the agreement was that the US, the UK, and Russia all made a commitment to Ukraine to respect its independence, sovereignty, and territorial borders. A lot of diplomatic negotiations had to occur behind the scenes to make that happen. For Russia to sign this treaty, then 20 years later violate it without the other signatories even so much as lifting a finger in protest is pretty unconscionable.

      But you are right. I worded my initial post poorly by implying that the US had obligations to defend Ukraine. In the legal sense, they did not. I will argue, however, that in a moral sense, they very much did.