Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "Why Slovakia’s Government Collapsed (and why it’s bad news for Ukraine)" video.

If Budapest Memorandum completely fails, then it opens the way for Ukraine to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
9
@titan_fx Ukraine's Non-Proliferation Treaty membership is attached to Budapest Memorandum's exchange.
4
@Tigran-Khan Abazyan Ukrainian government already declared nuclear weapons development if Budapest Memorandum's security assurance is not met.
4
@titan_fx The US, UK, and Russia signed Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum that traded Ukraine's nuclear weapons for security assurances. Russia has exited Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum. US EXIT from Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum has a negative outcome for non-NATO US allies being in the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). Trump knows about this issue, hence why Trump argued for nuclear arms for SK, JP, AUS and 'etc'.
3
@Tigran-Khan Abazyan NPT is part of "rules-based order" and IF the "rules-based order" collapse (e.g. Budapest Memorandum's complete failure), then NPT will also collapse.
2
@cyrneco FYI, the UK joins CPTPP in July 2023. My "Don't join CPTPP" statement is just a jest.
2
A desperate Ukraine with nuclear weapons is multiple mushroom clouds over Europe. It's US/UK support for Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum that is restricting Ukraine to be armed with nuclear weapons.
1
@sebe2255 What unanimous vote?
1
@sebe2255 Ukrainian government already declared nuclear weapons development if Budapest Memorandum's security assurance is not fullfilled.
1
@sebe2255 When Budapest Memorandum completely fails, it has a negative outcome on any US allies outside of NATO's Article V. This is why countries like South Korea and Japan are requesting the same AUKUS deal. Australia's ANZUS treaty doesn't have a NATO Article V quality. Japan can enrich fissile material into weapons-grade and the US ordered that the Japanese highly enrich fissile materials be stored in the US. The US told Taiwan and South Korea to halt the nuclear weapons program in exchange for US security assurances. If the US can't fulfill its security assurance promise, then the NPT rules-based order is dead. A significant number of GOP voters want the US to exit from defense treaties. A significant number of politicians want the US to block the AUKUS agreement. A significant number of GOP voters and politicians want the US to block an Australian company that enriches US nuclear fuels. Democrats and mainstream GOP politicians already warned GOP isolationists that Australia and UK are prepared to unilaterally proceed with the AUKUS agreement. Are you aware the leftist Canadian government has recently switched to supporting the CANZUK initiative? There is doubt about US's long-term security assurance commitment even from Five Eyes. Budapest Memorandum wasn't the 1st treaty with the US offering security assurances for another country's halting the nuclear weapons program. The EU should prepare for its own defense when GOP isolationists gain power in the US and executes unilateral defense treaty exits.
1
@sebe2255 Bill Clinton: “I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] to agree to give up their nuclear weapons. And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons,” “I knew that President Putin did not support the agreement [then-Russian] President [Boris] Yeltsin made never to interfere with Ukraine’s territorial boundaries – an agreement he made because he wanted Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons,” “They were afraid to give them up because they thought that’s the only thing that protected them from an expansionist Russia,” --- Budapest Memorandum was not the 1st treaty with the US offering security assurances for another country's halting the nuclear weapons program.
1
@sebe2255 The impact of the Budapest Memorandum's complete failure goes beyond Ukraine i.e. it wreaks the NPT "rules-based order".
1
@sebe2255 "Security assurance" is weaker than a "security guarantee", hence it's only military hardware aid, intelligence support, financial aid, and trade sanctions which is similar to the US support level for China when Imperial Japan invaded China. Australia's ANZUS treaty doesn't have a "security guarantee". With Budapest Memorandum, these are actions that the United States owes Ukraine for giving up nuclear arms on its territory. In 1994, Washington wrote Kyiv a check for U.S. support in the Budapest memorandum—albeit hoping that it would never be cashed. Unfortunately, it has. This is not just a matter of assisting Ukraine in the fulfillment of U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of "security assurances" for the future.
1
@sebe2255 Security assurances such as those in the Budapest memorandum do not carry as much weight as NATO security guarantees. Still, security assurances have played a role in the effort to freeze and end North Korea’s nuclear program. These kinds of assurances may not by themselves offer major leverage. However, when looking for ways to prevent nuclear proliferation, Washington and its partners should marshal every possible tool. The problem is that Russia’s actions against Ukraine have discredited security assurances. If a North Korean diplomat were to ask his or her Ukrainian counterpart how the Budapest memorandum worked out, the response would not be a happy one. At a September conference in Kyiv, former President Leonid Kuchma, who signed the Budapest memorandum for Ukraine, said that Ukraine had been “cheated.” Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk referred to the “notorious” Budapest memorandum. Such comments do not make good advertisements for future security assurances. Washington cannot undo Russia’s violations. It can and should, however, do more to fulfill its obligations under the Budapest memorandum by doing more to bolster Ukraine and penalize Russia until Moscow alters its policy. Such U.S. action could also change the Ukrainian narrative in the hypothetical conversation with a North Korean diplomat to “the Russians violated the memorandum, but the Americans backed us to the fullest and made Moscow pay.” That would help restore credibility to security assurances as an element in the toolkit of America’s non-proliferation diplomacy.
1
@sebe2255 For about 20 years, until the 2014 Russian military occupation of regions of Ukraine, Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was an exemplary case for nuclear non-proliferation. Since the invasions of Ukraine by Russia, the wisdom of Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons has been questioned, even by former president Bill Clinton, one of its signatories.
1
@sebe2255 The US support for Ukraine is based on US's continual political support. The are many "Tucker Carlson" supporters who argued for halting support for Ukraine regardless of the Budapest Memorandum's security assurances and NPT's rules-based order. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, hence they will not have the US's full military support. "Tucker Carlson" supporters don't care about the lost R&D time for Ukraine to reacquire nuclear weapons i.e. no compensation for the lost R&D time when the US exits Budapest Memorandum. House Republicans are in conflict about funding Ukraine's war effort and Republicans that support Ukraine's war effort will need the Democratic party's votes to pass the related funding bills. When Democrats control the House of Representatives, the vote outcome for the aid package for Ukraine is 368-57 vote. All lawmakers who voted against the bill were Republicans. Republicans currently control the House of Representatives.
1
@sebe2255 There are various support levels e.g. security assurances being less than security guarantees. It's not a simple black or white.
1
@sebe2255 There are obligations under Budapest Memorandum's "Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear weapons disarmament and joining NPT. US support for Budapest Memorandum is due to other similar security assurances that were exchanged for halting nuclear weapons program agreements and the NPT's "rules-based order". Tawan Relations Act is just security assurance and the US told TW to halt its nuclear program.
1
@sebe2255 >What are those exact obligations? 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders ---------- Since the Ukraine-Russia crisis erupted, Washington has provided political and economic support to Kyiv, as well as non-lethal military assistance. It has worked with the European Union to put in place increasingly tough sanctions on the Russian economy. Washington provided the Ukrainian military with defensive arms, such as anti-tank weapons. These are actions that the United States owes Ukraine for giving up nuclear arms on its territory. In 1994, Washington wrote Kyiv a check for U.S. support in the Budapest memorandum—albeit hoping that it would never be cashed. Unfortunately, it has. This is not just a matter of assisting Ukraine in the fulfillment of U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of other security assurances for the future.
1
@sebe2255 No. 52241 Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994
1
@sebe2255 The first document in which the US addressed Ukraine’s security concerns was Bush’s letter to Kravchuk, dated 23 June 1992. Hailing the Lisbon Protocol as a “historical accomplishment” that would help Ukraine reduce “the burden” of the Soviet nuclear legacy, Bush outlined four ways in which Ukraine’s security concerns could be addressed First, Bush formally reaffirmed the United States commitment to all non-nuclear NPT member states: it would seek immediate action in the UN Security Council to provide assistance if Ukraine became “the object of aggression or of threats of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Second, Bush urged Ukraine to put faith in Europe’s new collective security system by participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) and the UN, whose principle of inviolability of borders helps “assure the security of all states.” Finally, he offered US assistance in the development of Ukraine’s conventional armed forces “whose size, equipment, and doctrine contribute to the security of Ukraine and stability in the region.”
1
@sebe2255 The global repercussions of Russia’s breach of the Memorandum lie in its effects on international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. Despite its shortcomings, the Memorandum politically bounded Ukraine’s denuclearization to the respect for its territorial integrity by the nuclear powers. Continued, unsanctioned violation of this commitment will provide ample rhetorical ammunition to proliferators in favor of a nuclear deterrent as a remedy for both nuclear and conventional military threats. To dissuade them, the international community will have to invent a more convincing bargain than a security assurance. A nuclear-free world now comes at a dearer price.
1
@sebe2255 The U.S. spent more than $849 billion in the 20-year war in Afghanistan and has spent about $113 billion to support Ukraine since Russia invaded in 2022. The spending packages approved by Congress for Ukraine over the last year have, as we said, totaled roughly $113 billion — $13.6 billion in March, $40 billion in May, $12.35 billion in September, and $47 billion in December — including funding for NATO allies. US aid for Ukraine is cheaper than Vietnam War's $168 billion cost or $1 trillion in today's dollars.
1
@sebe2255 >Seems to me they only offered explicit (tacit) support in cases where Ukraine would be threatened with Nuclear weapons. Nope. 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. (Not specific for nuclear attack.) 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. (Not specific for nuclear attack.) 4. 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". (Covers both non-nuclear and nuclear attacks.)
1
@sebe2255 The 4th clause has the OR word. OR is used as a function word to indicate an alternative. If you ignored the OR word, the conclusion will be a nuclear-only attack, but OR word's inclusion is important.
1
@sebe2255 The cumulative cost of military intervention in the Iraq/Syria war zone has risen to $2.1 trillion since 9/11 (article dated Aug 2021). Again, US aid for Ukraine is cheaper than either Iraq/Syria or Afghanistan wars. A large chunk of US aid for Ukraine is for US manufacturers building ammo for Ukraine i.e. it's a manufacturing job creation scheme for the US while Ukraine receives the ammo i.e.it's a win-win deal for the US and Ukraine. The same for European NATO countries funding their manufacturing industries building ammo for Ukraine. WTO rules allow a state to fund manufacturing activities for military purposes. 2nd Iraq war intervention wasn't about “security guarantees”. Kuwait didn't have US "security guarantees" before the 1st Gulf War. Saddam's Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran. A major part of Japan's economic recovery after WW2 was US military-related manufacturing for the Korean War. Putin is the best salesman for NATO. Lockheed and Rheinmetall should give Putin golden handshakes.
1
@sebe2255 Your narrative "US is actually massively funding Ukraine through weapons and training" is not correct.
1
@sebe2255 For funding context. From GPAS__2021 pdf Pension (mandated nanny state saving funds) vs GDP ratio for 2021 Five Eyes/Five Passport Group, Australia, $2,333 billion, 174.8% (CPTPP member, Nordic model), Canada, $3,080 billion, 192.5% (USMCA, CPTPP member, Nordic model) United Kingdom, $3,564 billion, 135.1% (CPTPP member in July 2023, Nordic model) United States, $32,567 billion, 156.5% (USMCA member) (I don't have data for NZ) Notice the Five Eyes group has similar pension assets to GDP ratio results Large-scale mandated savings funds enable the government to issue government bonds and large-scale bond buyer markets! The Western allies learn from the WW2 war bonds experience and went big. EU Finland, $279 billion, 104.3% (Nordic model) France, $166 billion, 6.5% Germany, $548 billion, 14.5% (Don't blame international banks for Germany's subpar pension saving rate) Italy, $231 billion, 12.5% (PIIGS) Netherlands, $1,900 billion, 214.4%, (Nordic model) Ireland, $197 billion, 49.4% (PIIGS) Spain, $44 billion, 3.6% (PIIGS) The EU lacks strategic savings coordination. Non-EU, Europe Switzerland, $1,163 billion, 164.3% (Nordic model) North America Mexico, $259 billion, 24.9% (USMCA, CPTPP member) Canada, $3,080 billion, 192.5% (USMCA, CPTPP member, Nordic model) United States, $32,567 billion, 156.5% (USMCA member) South America Brazil, $195 billion,14.3% Chile, $243 billion, 99.2% (CPTPP member) East Asia, South East Asia China, $285 billion, 1.9% Hong Kong, $199 billion, 58.3% Japan, $3,613 billion, 73.6% (CPTPP member) South Korea, $968 billion, 61.0% Malaysia, $279 billion, 83.0% (CPTPP member) South-Central Asia India, $184 billion, 7.1%
1
@sebe2255 >Ukraine is receiving more in aid than Russia’s defense spending. You are just fearmongering over nothing The lesson from Budapest Memorandum's failure are; 1. If you want peace, prepare for war. 2. Feelings are useless without real firepower to back them. 3. Chamberlain's 'Peace for our time' paper is just paper. Failure to fulfill the Budapest Memorandum has proven the futility of nuclear disarmament, demonstrated the complete destruction of the system of collective security, and brought the paradigm of the new century into medieval "rule of force" that creates a potential threat to everyone. The weapon again becomes the main argument in international relations, proving the old almost forgotten rule: if you want peace for your country - elaborately prepare for war. -- Russia blocked Australia's and New Zealand's marine park proposals in Antarctica. It is the eighth year the proposal has been knocked back, with China and Russia voting the proposal down on previous occasions. This caused Australia to enlist help from the EU while New Zealand enlist help from the US.
1
@sebe2255 >You are just fearmongering over nothing US support for Ukraine is based on continual political support and maintaining interest.
1
@vgames6792 Wrong, Ukraine has highly enriched fissile material. WW2-era nuclear bombs do not have Cold War-era safety control. Cold War-era safety control systems can be replaced. Japan's highly enriched fissile material was also transferred to the US for similar reasons and security guarantees. Ukraine has a lesser security assurance.
1
@gavasiarobinssson5108 USSR is Grand Duchy of Moscow centric i.e. hint: railroad design.
1
USSR has a Grand Duchy of Moscow centric i.e. hint: railroad development.
1
@aleksaradojicic8114 Refer to "The railroad network of the U.S.S.R. : and the Fourth Five-Year Plan of reconstruction and development for railroad transport for 1946-1950"
1
@Tigran-Khan Abazyan What is the NPT withdrawal clause? Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
1
@Tigran-Khan Abazyan The US has a sovereign right to not trade with Iran. The US still maintained Iraq's territorial integrity despite Saddam's Iraq has invaded Kuwait and Iran.
1
Countries such as South Korea and Japan are demanding the same deal as Australia's AUKUS i.e. the halfway house between working rules-based order and rules-based order's complete failure. The Australian government is predicting the long-term collapse of the UN-era rules-based order. UK has no problems providing highly enriched fissile materials to Australia under the AUKUS's long-life micro-nuclear reactor program. Russia has land grabbed five Oblast from Ukraine like classic Imperial Russia.
1
Don't join CPTPP.
1