U.S. support of Ukraine fulfills a commitment we signed, and which Russia broke.
The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?
Sure there's a lot of truth to that, but you used to be able to know what mattered to the US. It wasn't erratic. The magnetic poles of the US just flipped.
In normal business the US is usually pretty good. A lot of the reason people trade with US dollars is the system normally works.
Also in matters of security they did a good job between 1945 and 2014 of keeping peace in Europe and stopping Russia running amok which was not that easy in Stalin's day.
I think the mess we have right now is because of many bad choices by US and allies since WW2:
1) They could reduce and rate limit lend lease to Soviet similar like they rate limited to Ukraine so buy themself more time until nuke is ready and then drop one on Dresden or Berlin (Berlin capitulated in May and they had first nuke in July so just few months later). After that probably didn't had nuke Japan. Also Poland and other eastern countries maybe wouldn't be a puppet state because Stalin lied to them and they would be under influence of US and Soviet Union would be weaker.
2) If they didn't have russian spy in their manhattan project then maybe russia wouldn't have nukes or had much much later.
3) If their didn't listen to british and US didn't overturn Mossadegh (instead of negotiating oil deal) then they wouldn't have maybe such a big mess in Iran and middle east now.
4) If the put some leash on Wall Street and their corporations then maybe they wouldn't let China to outcompete them so easily and now wouldn't have to worry about their own economical dominance.
5) If they would upfront told russian they will return nuke to Ukraine in case invasion because of broken contract commitment then they wouldn't have to worry about current mess in Europe.
6) Not much familiar with the whole history of Afganistan but still wondering what and how badly they US screwed that Afghans that were fighting with Soviet Union with aid of US turned agains them.
Trump is slapping 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico because the USMCA agreement "is a scam" and he was the one to negotiate and sign it. After ripping up NAFTA. The USA's word is worthless now.
The U.S. declined to provide a security "guarantee" because that would have amounted to a backdoor accession to NATO, and the U.S. could not grant that unilaterally. (An example of the U.S. honoring a prior commitment, by the way.) A "guarantee" would have required the U.S. to commit its military forces to the battlefield if Ukraine was invaded.
The U.S. instead provided a security "assurance" which was understood to mean a level of support short of U.S. troops on the ground. And in fact that is what the U.S. has been providing: intelligence and material, but no U.S. forces.
In other words, the level of support has been commensurate with the agreement signed. Until today, apparently.
> Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.
Also, that was not any form of an agreement, it was just words in a meeting. Nobody signed, it was not ratified with US congress as a treaty.
If you take that as binding then all the verbal commitments made to Russia that NATO won't expand eastwards should also have been binding, and they were broken first. I know you will get angry that I mention it, but it's a fact.
Well, I did say not legally binding. But you can see how someone might interpret "Russia and the U.S. will give full guarantees of security" to mean "Russia and the U.S. will give full guarantees of security" if they weren't really paying attention?
It was not even an agreement at all, nevermind binding. It was words said by the Russian president. Not a contract, not a memorandum, just words in a meeting. If Ukraine took one sentence said by the Russian president in a meeting as security guarantees from US (emphasis on the word guarantees) then they are the problem.
Security guarantees would at minimum require a treaty ratified by congress in US, something which I don't think is on the table any more at all.
The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?