• chowder@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Personally I feel the US supplying Ukraine weapons fulfills the Budapest Memorandum. I feel we had an obligation to supply F-16s and Abrams earlier to guarantee security of their land.

    • bucho@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, better late than never. Still, I would have loved to see us doing what we’re currently doing back in 2014. If we’d done that, Russia would probably not have invaded a second time.

      Edit: Alternatively, we could have not induced Ukraine to destroy its nuclear stockpile, in which case Russia would never have invaded them in the first place. Of course, I’m torn on this one, as more nuclear weapons = more chance for the total annhiliation of all humanity. So, I’d prefer they remove their nukes, and we defend them as promised.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They couldn’t use them, they could leverage them against either side but spinning up a nuclear program in the years of the fall of the ussr was very very unlikely given the cost, material expense and rarity of some of the necessary items.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      supplying Ukraine weapons

      Disposing old stockpiles in Ukraine.