The Dark
Premium Platinum
- Jan 13, 2025
- 106
- 331
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I'll see Warlord's clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" and raise you one further;
If anyone in this scenario has a casus belli (not 'causus' belli as SLF called it), then by actual agreed upon international law and treaties it's...
The United States.
They would be well within their right to put boots on the ground and help defend Ukraine ten-times more than their current 'military aid packages' do.
Want to know why? (And here's the dirty little fact that the Russian clique here conveniently ignores all the while talking about Cold War "agreements" not to expand NATO);
As part of the 1994 negotiations for Ukraine to give up the Soviet nuclear arsenal that was deployed in their territory, a Trilateral Agreement was signed by Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. This Trilateral Agreement resulted in the following agreements, plain and clear;
Providing support to Ukraine's security and defense was literally something that the United States signed and ratified! The second that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the United States was not only well within their right to dramatically increase their military support for Ukraine, but they was obligated to do so.
- Russia committed to never invading Ukraine or interfering with their sovereign independence
- Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from Russia and the United States.
So you're saying the US was perfectly entitled to start a war in Ukraine bro.