Hacker News Reader

Comment by sushid | Hacker News Reader

So it brokered a protection deal in exchange for nuclear weapons and then... reneged on its promise?

Well, one of the other three nations in on the deal reneged so hard they invaded (twice, or once with a delayed extension of the invasion depending on perspective). The US has supplied materiel and training, but not personnel (in the combatant sense, at least). And if the House would pass a funding bill for it, more would be supplied.

And to be incredibly clear, ¶ 4 of the Budapest Memorandum committed the United States "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Assuming we sever the last "or" such that the clause activates if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression," the commitment was to seek UNSC action to provide assistance. America sought that. And it's directly providing assistance. America never guaranteed the security of Ukraine.

[1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

Well, it poured tens of billions of military aid on Ukraine over 2 years, supplied tons of intelligence, training, conceded to US made arms being transferred. I'd say that is a lot.

More would be better, but I don't think we are in the realms of "reneging on promises".

The original agreement was very vague. Was it to mean that the US would defend Ukraine will all it's military might, up to conscripting Americans and sending out nukes? Surely not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com