United States is offering Ukraine security guarantees for a period of 15 years as part of a proposed peace plan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday, though he said he would prefer an American commitment of up to 50 years to deter Russia from further attempts to seize its neighbor’s land by force.
Donald Trump hosted Zelenskyy at his Florida resort on Sunday and insisted that Ukraine and Russia are “closer than ever before” to a peace settlement.
Negotiators are still searching for a breakthrough on key issues, however, including whose forces withdraw from where and the fate of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, one of the 10 biggest in the world. Trump noted that the monthslong U.S.-led negotiations could still collapse.
Proving yourself wrong with your own source.
"1. 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. "
To date, NONE of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum have ever requested an Article 4 session in support of Ukraine.
Ukraine has been nuked? Or perhaps that’s read as “used” as a threat. In any case, the point was that the previous agreements did not provide any defense guarantees.
And what is article 4 in relation to the UN security council? There have been several security council meetings on Ukraine.
Read a little more carefully…
experience an act of aggression OR be threatened with nukes. The first has occurred… it does not have to include being attacked with nukes.
I mean, we got both. Putin has implicitly and explicitly threatened nuclear strikes many times.
it’s definitively ambiguous. you can’t say either way with only the english.
Nice edit after the fact.
There have been Article 4 meetings on Ukraine, all brought (and signed on to) by member states that are NOT signatories on the Budapest Memorandum. None of those countries upheld their legal obligations to bring the matter to the security council.
These are all well-established matters of record on the UN website, and since you’re willfully ignoring established fact, engaging with you on this is no longer productive.
Have the day you voted for.
deleted by creator
Wow. Reading comprehension isn’t your thing.
That two letter word between the two types of wars is “OR”, and delineates two separate, but related, things.
both of these readings are valid:
(should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used)
((should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression)) in which nuclear weapons are used
english is ambiguous in this case. don’t be dismissive of people for “reading comprehension” when it’s definitively ambiguous