Hypothetically, is there a chance to give in now, without making it a precedent? I think history shows that agreements with Russia are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you look at the Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia pages are generally written to support the Western elite perspective) for the agreement, the US broke the agreement first in 2013 before Russia violated it.
Certainly, this example shows that agreements with Russia that the US violates are not binding to Russian decision-makers.
USA screwed up by acting legibly. (I don’t buy the story that Belarus spontaneously became a pro-Russian dictatorship with zero intervention from Russia.)
Where did you hear that Belarus got spontaneously pro-Russian?
There’s no claim that there’s zero intervention anywhere and the agreement does not call for zero intervention. I would expect that there is not a single state that has zero intervention from the United States.
The agreement does forbid using military force and also economic sanctions against Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the US violated it by imposing economic sanctions against Belarus.
Within a few months from that point, this then increased Russian demands on Ukraine not signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and the Ukrainian leader ruling out signing the agreement. Then partly with Western support, there were protests that toppled his government. The new government was then not recognized by Russia and Russia felt the need to intervene militarily.
That isn’t to say, that Russia’s actions are good. They are however far unprovoked or happen in an environment where Russia fails to honor agreements when other parties honor them.
Hypothetically, is there a chance to give in now, without making it a precedent? I think history shows that agreements with Russia are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you look at the Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia pages are generally written to support the Western elite perspective) for the agreement, the US broke the agreement first in 2013 before Russia violated it.
Certainly, this example shows that agreements with Russia that the US violates are not binding to Russian decision-makers.
USA screwed up by acting legibly. (I don’t buy the story that Belarus spontaneously became a pro-Russian dictatorship with zero intervention from Russia.)
Where did you hear that Belarus got spontaneously pro-Russian?
There’s no claim that there’s zero intervention anywhere and the agreement does not call for zero intervention. I would expect that there is not a single state that has zero intervention from the United States.
The agreement does forbid using military force and also economic sanctions against Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the US violated it by imposing economic sanctions against Belarus.
Within a few months from that point, this then increased Russian demands on Ukraine not signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and the Ukrainian leader ruling out signing the agreement. Then partly with Western support, there were protests that toppled his government. The new government was then not recognized by Russia and Russia felt the need to intervene militarily.
That isn’t to say, that Russia’s actions are good. They are however far unprovoked or happen in an environment where Russia fails to honor agreements when other parties honor them.