Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
This would only be a pause for Putin. He never honors treaties.
Not in defence of him as he is total scum, but no-one else does either. Remember in 94 when us and uk promised Ukraine protection for ceding their nukes?
There’s a lesson here: never give up your nukes.
The UK sent a lot of goods, so did the USA.
Your point is that they aren't doing enough?
Yes. Sending goods isn't protection.
And especially not when the US keeps threatening to take away all those goods for trumped-up reasons.
Well yes it is IMO. They can and should do more ofc.
They were never guaranteed "protection".
Yes, they were. It was the whole reason they gave up their nukes.
No, they were guaranteed "security assurance".
And we failed to assure their security. Assurance = guarantee in legalese.
Horseshit. GTFO with this vatniki talking point.
The phrase "security guarantees" was specifically excluded. The phrase "security assurance" was a distinction made by the US State Dept lawyers for this exact reason; it makes clear the US is not a guarantor. This has been well known since the signing so no misunderstanding here is reasonable. That is just your distortion of the facts.
Go read the full text of the Budapest Memorandum and then come back and provide a specific citation. I'll be here waiting.
Ok, so we still failed to assure their security.
Btw, assurance and guarantee are synonymous legally. Assurance is the legal term for a guarantee.
The US has honored both the spirit and letter of this commitment and to date has provided over half of aid Ukraine has received, with it largely uninterrupted even under Trump. At worst, the US is an unreliable partner to Ukraine who should do more. Since the War began, Ukraine has been the US's largest foreign aid recipient. In absolute terms, the US is still the largest single donor (iirc it was nearly matched by the EU, so maybe is matched by now.)
No reasonable person could claim the country who provided half of Ukrainian aid isn't helping.
We let Russia invade them. We didn't assure their security.
Okay, we are talking past each other and I am done with you. Bye forever.
Next time you want to argue semantics, you should try understanding what words mean first.
That's a myth:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-give-nukes-russia-us-security-guarantees-1765048
I'm not convinced that a minor linguistic distinction is valid proof that Ukraine was not promised protection of its territorial sovereignty.
All I read in that article is author's weird interpretation backed only by the fact that all the countries that signed it chose to ignore it when russia started the war in 2014.
Yeah, sounds like a lot of lawyer weaseling that amounts to "yes we agreed to help you, but technically we don't have to, so go fuck yourselves."
The distinction between "guarantee" and "assurance" is pretty unimportant when it comes to the Budapest Memorandum – the main problem is that all points are just "reaffirmations of commitment", and the UK, US and RF "reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security action [...] if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression [...] in which nuclear weapons are used.
There was never any guarantee, assurance, promise or even just pretension to secure Ukraine against a conventional, non-nuclear aggression. Just well worded empty phrases.
You conveniently removed the part where threat of nukes also triggers this commitment.
"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".
Fuck putin, fuck russia.
Why conveniently? Has Moskow ever threatened Ukraine with nukes? I only ever heard unofficial comments that Europe and the US should be afraid of The Mighty Russian Nuklear Force if they dare to ramp up their support for Ukraine.
My point is that the Budapest memorandum was a scam - it does not offer any protection against non-nuclear aggression or threat thereof and offers only the protection of the UNSC in case of nuclear aggression or threat thereof. But the UNSC cannot protect against one of it's veto powers by design, so even in the case of nuclear aggression or threat thereof this memorandum would not work if the UK, the US, the RF, France or China were the aggressor. Israel would likely be backed by the US, North Korea by China, so this memorandum boils down to a pinky promise that the UNSC would express it's dissatisfaction if India or Pakistan attacks Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Or threatens to do so.
The link is my reply. Did you extra conveniently miss it?
Yes. "Fuck putin, fuck russia." did not rise my attention above "I agree". Sorry.
We did provide assistance!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Jesus christ stop repeating Russian propaganda people!
I think it's very clear to any non-idiot who in this thread is spewing russian propaganda.
You realize that "we promised Ukraine protection to give up their nukes" is Russian propaganda, right?
Next you're going to tell me "NATO promised Russia to never expand eastward", right?
What you're saying is such obvious nonsense that I struggle to even begin to understand how you manage to justify that insane contradiction in your head.
It's not a minor linguistic distinction. They literally were not promised protection of their territorial sovereignty. They were promised military intervention if Russia used nukes, and security assurances if Russia used military force but not nukes. This was made repeatedly clear to all signatories.
And we've all been sending military aid and funding to Ukraine since 2014.
That's two myths:
That Ukraine was "promised protection" in exchange for giving up its nukes - it wasn't.
That Ukraine was ignored after Russia invaded in 2014 - it wasn't.
I suggest you take some time to read what we've actually been doing since 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
And then maybe post some links of your own as to where you're getting these false ideas, probably Russian propaganda I presume?
It's not even that. The current Russian economy would collapse under peace. It's just more maskirovka, and only Trump hasn't realised that.
Putin can honour the only treaty of life - death will arrive for him eventually.