I don’t think we guaranteed their security, just that we wouldn’t invade or otherwise threaten their sovereignty. We discussed it here a little:
Russia made the same agreement, of course.
Given that I was alive from before the Soviet collapse to modern times, I can only say, “Whaaaaaa?”
Are you saying this is everyone else’s fault for not playing more nicely with Putin over the years? For not being Charlie Brown to his Lucy with smiles and handshakes?
If Putin isn’t acting rationally, which seems increasingly likely, then trying to game out what we should have done is kind of pointless. Pretty much impossible to predict how irrational actors are going to behave.
Not saying that. But when the post WWII period has an understanding between the big nuclear powers that MAD, as crazy as it sounds, keeps relative peace between the big guys why conduct strategically destabilizing actions such as anti ballistic missile tech and formal alliances with former territory of your once great rival? It’s needlessly antagonistic for minimum gain.
You’re speaking in generalities and principles. Can you relate this concretely to the current situation?
To answer the OP, it’s ironic that all of Trump’s nagging of NATO allies to get them to increase defense spending didn’t work, but under Biden, it has happened beyond Trump’s wildest dreams.
What part of that guarantee do you think the USA and UK have not followed through on? The memorandum said they weren’t supposed to attack Ukraine, which they have not, and that if Ukraine was the victim of aggression the UN Security Council should be asked to take action, which happened.
The USA and UK have kept their word.
It seems likely that Trump didn’t actually want NATO nations to increase their investment in NATO, but just said so in the hopes that if they felt attacked and beleaguered enough, they might leave NATO. (A strategy that might have been suggested to Donald by, oh, I don’t know, perhaps some Russian guy or other.)
Trump’s diplomats may even have said as much to the NATO countries Trump was haranguing… ‘you know we don’t really want you to spend more to strengthen NATO—we just want you to rethink whether or not you want to be in NATO at all…’
One unintended consequence is that just about every country in Europe is now looking towards its own security and seeking protection from an expansionist Russia. The EU countries that believed in engaging with Putin’s Russia, thinking they were dealing with a rational actor have now suddenly changed their mind. Orban in Hungary was about the closest. He saw in Putin a fellow nationalist and copied some of Putin’s policies for restricting the activities of NGOs. Especially those promoting democracy funded by Soros. Suddenly the existential threat has changed from these foreign organisations to a rather more visible threat of the Russian army sending in tanks to assert control over Ukraine. Who will be next?
Germany has made some dramatic changes of policy towards Russia. Instead of a policy of economic engagement with Russia, it is voting to increase its defence budget for NATO and ship arms to Ukraine to defend itself. Finland and Sweden are sending arms as well. Even the Swiss are assisting with the economic sanctions against Russia.
Putin has united all of Europe against Russia by this invasion of Ukraine. This is remarkable. A huge strategic mistake that has undone years of diplomacy and negotiation by Russia to promote its interests in Europe. No more chess games, a sudden return to Cold War face offs.
The energy policy of many EU countries was to migrate from coal to natural gas and then to renewables. Reliance on Russian natural gas as a cleaner transition fuel toward zero carbon will now become a supply risk that has to be mitigated as quickly as possible. LNG terminals, accelerating renewable power generation projects and developing connected power grid and natural gas grids.
The huge Oil and Gas resources of Russia will have to find other customers outside of Europe. The carefully cultivated status of Russia as a reliable energy provider has all but gone.
Putin is not a man you can confidently do business with. Until he goes, Russia cannot be trusted.
Yes you seem to be right. I had thought that the agreement was a bit more substantial than empty assurances.
ESLT ftw. 
Many clinical trials are threatened by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Ukraine is home to about 2,500 public medical facilities that have experience running international trials, and there are about 500 ongoing trials each year, according to clinical research organization Global Clinical Trials. The affect of the conflict on clinical trials could be far reaching. The biopharma industry is actively testing 251 drugs and devices in clinical trials that have at least one Ukraine site, according to the FDA’s clinical trials database.”
“This includes 11 of 195 study locations for Merck’s phase 3 trial of Keytruda in combination with Lenvima in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Regeneron also has studies in Ukraine, where it’s testing Libtayo in combination with doublet chemotherapy in a phase 3 study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Six of that study’s 143 locations are in Ukraine.”
This has been Europe’s greatest week in many decades. Clean energy, boosted defense spending, a united continent, camaraderie, can’t ask for more.
Fewer dead people would have been good.
I suppose that was an intended consequence of the Russian invasion though.
One unintentional consequence of the West’s stance is that it is inadvertently rewarding nuclear proliferation: The US and NATO have sent a clear message that having a nuclear arsenal protects you (Russia, in this case) from direct military intervention.
Serbs? No problem, bomb em. Iraq? Yup. Syria? Yup. Afghanistan, no prob.
In other words, an adversary like North Korea has every incentive to retain its nuclear arsenal, or make one in the first place. Nukes make absolutely perfect sense - they keep the West at bay.
I would turn that around and say that it’s the Russian example wrt Ukraine that is demonstrating this to nations who want nukes or have them and are being asked to give them up. After all, that’s exactly where Ukraine was, and through negotiation, with both the west and Russia they gave them up. And how has that worked out for them?
Well, within the context of the much more weighty unintended consequences spoken of in this thread, my contribution is small potatoes. But it’s one I’ve hoped for for a long time, so I was very happy to see it.
I noticed last night that the RT (Russia Today) channel is “no longer available” on DirecTV. It galled me every time I saw it in the channel lineup or advertised on other news channels. They had some unfortunately slick ads. But RT was nothing but a pure propaganda feed into American homes.
I’m glad it’s gone. But I bet Vlad isn’t.
On a similar note, though I think this was previously discussed (all these threads sort of blend together in my own mind anyway), a lot of Russian channels have been demonetized or disabled on YouTube and Twitter as well. That’s definitely going to be an unintended consequence that’s going to be hitting the channel’s creators pretty hard.
And Putin, too.
Up until now, the folks who can’t discern between freedom of speech and propaganda would have howled if those steps had been taken. Now, some can finally work out that allowing bald-faced lies and propaganda is pretty un-American. Long overdue, IMO.
I wonder for how long Fox “News” can avoid facing this development.