this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
174 points (98.3% liked)

Ukraine

8301 readers
589 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

Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam
  6. No content against Finnish law

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
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 3 points 2 weeks ago

Strongly worded tweets?