Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Wallace
The intent is Irrelevant. The U.S signed on as a Guarantor's of Ukraine's security and sovereignty. The U.S should live up to it's agreements. I agree that we shouldn't be the world's policeman. Btw, who said the Ukraine was an unstable Government ?
|
you don't read very well I said possible, and was speaking of the thoughts at the time of the end of the cold war and Ukraine gaining independence. Yugoslavia was descending into civil war, the caucuses were a mess, and at the time there was a feeling that Ukraine could fall into chaos and nobody wanted wanted operable nuclear weapons in the area under control of unknown entity.
And while you all think the U.S. promised a "Security Guarantee" to Ukraine, it in fact did not, the wording was changed to "Security Assurance". And while that sounds like a distinction without a difference, in the land of Foreign Policy it's not.
Quote:
|
U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement
|