Posted on Mar 4, 2025
Principles and Compromises: Churchill, Roosevelt and Eastern Europe
3.37K
13
11
3
3
0
I see Zelenskyy seeing himself as a modern day Winston Churchill , but even Churchill made compromises for longer peace and prosperity
Principles and Compromises: Churchill, Roosevelt and Eastern Europe
Posted from winstonchurchill.orgPosted in these groups: 
WWII World War Two
United Kingdom
Office of the President (POTUS)
Russia
Cold War
WWII World War Two United Kingdom Office of the President (POTUS) Russia Cold War
Posted 27 d ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
Churchill and Roosevelt gave up Poland and East Germany to the USSR, who had done all the heavy lifting in defeating Germany there (after Germany turned on them).
Zelensky is not dividing up Europe between allied powers, he is trying to repel an invasion in just his own country, and rightly believes Ukraine should not have to give up it's own sovereign land to Russia just because they invaded.
That would be like telling 1945 Germany, "well you guys did do all the work to invade, so you can keep these territories in these countries".
Zelensky is not dividing up Europe between allied powers, he is trying to repel an invasion in just his own country, and rightly believes Ukraine should not have to give up it's own sovereign land to Russia just because they invaded.
That would be like telling 1945 Germany, "well you guys did do all the work to invade, so you can keep these territories in these countries".
(3)
(0)
COL Randall C.
MSG Stan Hutchison - Russia and Ukraine didn't sign a treaty in 2019, but they did agree to a cease-fire deal (one of many) regarding the Donbass region and an exchange of prisoners that year ('cease-fire' could more accurately be described as 'some slowdown in the hostilities' though).
However, there were never any security guarantees in the agreement or any that were subsequent to it. A truce in the summer of 2020 did significantly reduce the ceasefire violations and did cool down the conflict until 2022, however the Russo-Ukrainian War which started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 never ended.
Ukraine and Russia did agree to goals for ending the war, but they wouldn't agree on how they would get there, so the low-level fighting remained until Russia escalated with the renewed invasion in 2022.
Your comments about Putin are largely correct in my view (ok ... ok .. I'll give an opinion in this case). I mostly agree with CSM Chuck Stafford that none of the concerns Russia stated (and it should be no surprise that opinions if they were legitimate or contrived vary) are justifications for initiating a war with a neighbor (I am honest enough with myself to recognize that I could be mistaken in my assumptions though).
However, there were never any security guarantees in the agreement or any that were subsequent to it. A truce in the summer of 2020 did significantly reduce the ceasefire violations and did cool down the conflict until 2022, however the Russo-Ukrainian War which started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 never ended.
Ukraine and Russia did agree to goals for ending the war, but they wouldn't agree on how they would get there, so the low-level fighting remained until Russia escalated with the renewed invasion in 2022.
Your comments about Putin are largely correct in my view (ok ... ok .. I'll give an opinion in this case). I mostly agree with CSM Chuck Stafford that none of the concerns Russia stated (and it should be no surprise that opinions if they were legitimate or contrived vary) are justifications for initiating a war with a neighbor (I am honest enough with myself to recognize that I could be mistaken in my assumptions though).
(1)
(0)
COL John McClellan
What part of "guarantee Ukraine's security" isn't clear to Putin, and Trump??
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/ [login to see] /ukraine-russia-putin-invasion
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/ [login to see] /ukraine-russia-putin-invasion
Why Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons — and what that means in an invasion by Russia
Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world. A lot has changed since then.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
COL John McClellan - Contrary to the article's statement, nowhere in the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"* (the formal name of the 'Budapest Memorandum') did it "guarantee Ukraine's security".
What the Budapest Memorandum did stipulate was that the signatories (specifically the United States, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom) would:
● Respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
●Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and that none of their weapons will be used against Ukraine except in self-defense
●Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty
●Seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Ukraine should become victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used
● Commit to not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except if they are attacked by nuclear weapons
There's no doubt that Russia violated every stipulation in the agreement and that the United States does have an obligation to respond (and has), but that obligation does not extend beyond the political.
Stephen Fifer was one of the architects of the Budapest Memorandum and commented on the memorandum in 2014 - "Words matter, and a big question at the time arose over whether to use the term 'guarantees' or 'assurances' in the memorandum. The United States provides guarantees to allies, such as NATO member states; the term implies a military commitment. In the early 1990s, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to extend a military commitment to Ukraine— and both felt that, even if they wanted to, the Senate would not produce the needed two-thirds vote for consent to ratification of such a treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum thus was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee. U.S. negotiators —myself among them — discussed this point in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding."
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Budapest Memorandum - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
What the Budapest Memorandum did stipulate was that the signatories (specifically the United States, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom) would:
● Respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
●Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and that none of their weapons will be used against Ukraine except in self-defense
●Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty
●Seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Ukraine should become victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used
● Commit to not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except if they are attacked by nuclear weapons
There's no doubt that Russia violated every stipulation in the agreement and that the United States does have an obligation to respond (and has), but that obligation does not extend beyond the political.
Stephen Fifer was one of the architects of the Budapest Memorandum and commented on the memorandum in 2014 - "Words matter, and a big question at the time arose over whether to use the term 'guarantees' or 'assurances' in the memorandum. The United States provides guarantees to allies, such as NATO member states; the term implies a military commitment. In the early 1990s, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to extend a military commitment to Ukraine— and both felt that, even if they wanted to, the Senate would not produce the needed two-thirds vote for consent to ratification of such a treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum thus was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee. U.S. negotiators —myself among them — discussed this point in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding."
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Budapest Memorandum - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't believe Zelensky will ever be a Winston Churchill even though he attemps to dress like him.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
