@WaNe
Very good. It's a trusted source. Thanks you!
And it describes in long form what I summarized from the Wikipedia article:
USA doesn't view the Budapest Memorandum as legally binding.
In exchange for #Ukraines nuclear warheads, USA, UK and Russia promised to not threaten or attack her.
But it doesn't extent to active protection in case of an attack by one of the signatory parties.
Rubio's interpretation 2014 (and also 2022 in various videos on YT) was wrong-ish in that he falsely claimed that Ukraine was legally entitled to weapons from USA against Russia's invasion.
But he was right when he stated in the clip in #1 how it would damage USA's reputation if they let Russia steal Ukraine territory unchallenged.
Who'd sign a new treaty with USA, seeing how Ukraine was let down? Let down precisely because USA in 1994 denied to sign a more assertive document that would have meant actual protection.
THE DEAL (on "Raw Earth" as the Dick Tater calls rare earths ) in exchange for more weapons,
is an extortion – arguably in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. Kinda like when Putler shut off the gas pipeline to Ukraine in 2004.
The Dick Tater bleating about how European aid to Ukraine comes as loan while USA gifts weapons to her "without anything in return",
must also be seen in light of the Budapest Memorandum and the USA's unwillingness to draft a more decisive security guarantee in 1994: Morally, USA is obligated to gift weapons to Ukraine.
Now-Secretary Of State Marco Rubio in 2014 interpreted it in a similar fashion.
But coming from him as a Republican, we can say, his false-ish claims came
merely to contradict Obama's arguably immoral decision to let Russia run amok unchecked.
Obama instead let Europe (Merkel and Hollande) deal with Russia. They then sat on it without solving it, until the keg exploded around our ears in 2022.
With plenty of warnings in East Ukraine where armed skirmishes did occur 2014-2022 but got politely ignored.
Thank you Merkel.