完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
版主： who， shepherd17
-
shepherd17
- 精英
- 帖子： 6233
- 注册时间： 2023-12-24
- Has thanked： 993 time
- Been thanked： 830 time
Re: 完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
没有核武器就这个下场，别人想打你就打你，理由随便找，多的是。
当年俄罗斯、美国、英国信誓旦旦向乌克兰保证，如果乌克兰拆除境内近2千枚核武器的话，前者将保证后者的安全 (security assurances)。现在乌克兰的下场全世界都看到了。
Concise takeaway
Ukraine received security assurances, not binding defense guarantees, from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia when it agreed to dismantle the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union.
These assurances were formalized in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
What “security assurances” actually meant
Security assurances are political commitments, not enforceable obligations.
They promised:
- Respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty
- No threat or use of force against Ukraine
- No economic coercion
- UN Security Council action if Ukraine were threatened
- No nuclear weapons use against Ukraine
These were not NATO‑style guarantees.
The U.S. and U.K. did not promise to defend Ukraine militarily.
Why Ukraine accepted this
Ukraine inherited roughly 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads after the USSR collapsed.
It lacked full operational control, but it could have attempted to keep them.
To join the Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non‑nuclear state, Ukraine sought assurances that disarming would not leave it exposed.
The Budapest Memorandum was the compromise.
What happened later
Russia’s actions in 2014 (Crimea) and 2022 (full‑scale invasion) are widely described by Western governments and many legal scholars as violations of the memorandum.
The U.S. and U.K. argue Russia broke its commitments.
Russia claims political changes in Ukraine voided the agreement — a position rejected by most international legal experts.
Why this distinction matters
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances, not guarantees.
This difference is central to debates about whether Ukraine was left vulnerable.
Re: 完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
shepherd17 写了： 昨天, 18:27没有核武器就这个下场，别人想打你就打你，理由随便找，多的是。
当年俄罗斯、美国、英国信誓旦旦向乌克兰保证，如果乌克兰拆除境内近2千枚核武器的话，前者将保证后者的安全 (security assurances)。现在乌克兰的下场全世界都看到了。
这个是条约不完善，当时的俄罗斯怎么也没想到 自家兄弟会让世仇英国军舰进入克里米亚，在自己腹部捅一刀。
这才导致后来俄罗斯收复克里米亚。
Re: 完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
shepherd17 写了： 昨天, 18:27没有核武器就这个下场，别人想打你就打你，理由随便找，多的是。
当年俄罗斯、美国、英国信誓旦旦向乌克兰保证，如果乌克兰拆除境内近2千枚核武器的话，前者将保证后者的安全 (security assurances)。现在乌克兰的下场全世界都看到了。
Concise takeaway
Ukraine received security assurances, not binding defense guarantees, from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia when it agreed to dismantle the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union.
These assurances were formalized in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
What “security assurances” actually meant
Security assurances are political commitments, not enforceable obligations.
They promised:
- Respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty
- No threat or use of force against Ukraine
- No economic coercion
- UN Security Council action if Ukraine were threatened
- No nuclear weapons use against Ukraine
These were not NATO‑style guarantees.
The U.S. and U.K. did not promise to defend Ukraine militarily.
Why Ukraine accepted this
Ukraine inherited roughly 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads after the USSR collapsed.
It lacked full operational control, but it could have attempted to keep them.To join the Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non‑nuclear state, Ukraine sought assurances that disarming would not leave it exposed.
The Budapest Memorandum was the compromise.
What happened later
Russia’s actions in 2014 (Crimea) and 2022 (full‑scale invasion) are widely described by Western governments and many legal scholars as violations of the memorandum.
The U.S. and U.K. argue Russia broke its commitments.
Russia claims political changes in Ukraine voided the agreement — a position rejected by most international legal experts.
Why this distinction matters
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances, not guarantees.
This difference is central to debates about whether Ukraine was left vulnerable.
你想多啦，现在是伊朗想打就打，想收过路费就收过路费。美国根本没办法
Re: 完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
中期投共和党，让共和党掌握两院绝对多数，就有办法了。
resso 写了： 昨天, 20:21shepherd17 写了： 昨天, 18:27没有核武器就这个下场，别人想打你就打你，理由随便找，多的是。
当年俄罗斯、美国、英国信誓旦旦向乌克兰保证，如果乌克兰拆除境内近2千枚核武器的话，前者将保证后者的安全 (security assurances)。现在乌克兰的下场全世界都看到了。
Concise takeaway
Ukraine received security assurances, not binding defense guarantees, from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia when it agreed to dismantle the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union.
These assurances were formalized in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
What “security assurances” actually meant
Security assurances are political commitments, not enforceable obligations.
They promised:
- Respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty
- No threat or use of force against Ukraine
- No economic coercion
- UN Security Council action if Ukraine were threatened
- No nuclear weapons use against Ukraine
These were not NATO‑style guarantees.
The U.S. and U.K. did not promise to defend Ukraine militarily.
Why Ukraine accepted this
Ukraine inherited roughly 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads after the USSR collapsed.
It lacked full operational control, but it could have attempted to keep them.To join the Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non‑nuclear state, Ukraine sought assurances that disarming would not leave it exposed.
The Budapest Memorandum was the compromise.
What happened later
Russia’s actions in 2014 (Crimea) and 2022 (full‑scale invasion) are widely described by Western governments and many legal scholars as violations of the memorandum.
The U.S. and U.K. argue Russia broke its commitments.
Russia claims political changes in Ukraine voided the agreement — a position rejected by most international legal experts.
Why this distinction matters
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances, not guarantees.
This difference is central to debates about whether Ukraine was left vulnerable.你想多啦，现在是伊朗想打就打，想收过路费就收过路费。美国根本没办法
-
shepherd17
- 精英
- 帖子： 6233
- 注册时间： 2023-12-24
- Has thanked： 993 time
- Been thanked： 830 time
Re: 完了，三千亿赔不出去啦
打伊朗战争主要是由特朗普个人强力主导的，他这一行动在共和党内部引发了巨大的路线分歧和争议。特朗普绑架了共和党。
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/p ... aways.html