On Thursday, President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a 10-year US-Ukraine bilateral military agreement on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Italy.
The deal affirms that the US will continue training Ukrainian forces, providing military aid, and helping build up Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. But the agreement could be easily reversed by a future president and is largely symbolic since it doesn’t commit the US to any spending.
US officials told CNN that the deal was an “executive agreement” rather than a formal treaty, which means it doesn’t require the approval of the Senate. The text says that either party could scrap the agreement “by providing a written notification through diplomatic channels to the other Party of its intent to terminate.”
The deal says that if Ukrainian territory is attacked in the future, the two parties should hold consultations within 24 hours, but it does not provide a mutual defense guarantee.
The text says the US and Ukraine recognize the agreement as “supporting a bridge to Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO Alliance,” but it doesn’t outline a clear path to Ukraine’s membership. It only repeats a vague promise NATO members gave to Ukraine at the Vilnius summit last year that they would eventually invite Ukraine to join “when Allies agree and conditions are met.”
Zelensky fumed at the NATO summit last year over the vague guarantee, but he is celebrating the new deal with the US and framing it as a path toward NATO membership. “Today is a truly historic day. And we have signed the strongest agreement between Ukraine and the US since our independence,” Zelensky said at a press conference with Biden.
France and some other NATO members are working on a plan to send troops to Ukraine for training, which would mark a huge escalation, but Biden said in his remarks that the new agreement supports Ukraine without sending US troops to the country.
“Not by sending American troops to fight [in] Ukraine but by providing weapons and ammunition, expanded intelligence sharing, continue to train brave Ukrainian troops at bases in Europe and the United States, enhancing interoperability between our militaries in line with NATO standards, investing in Ukraine’s defense industrial base so in time … they can supply their own weapons,” Biden said.
Bad Deal…!
Biden commits us to another decade of forever war, a war that will most likely last longer than him and a war that may very well bring on a worldwide nuclear war. Why do we let a lifelong swamp warmonger who is too senile to be prosecuted rule over us? Why is the Democratic Party nominating him AGAIN and suppressing third parties off the ballot?
If it wasn’t obvious before, presidents don’t run the country.
The donor class, MIC, AIPAC. The last decent President we had was assassinated in 1963. A coup if there ever was one.
Y'all don't leave us much to fight them Russkies for.
So good onya.
Y'all don't leave us much to fight them Russkies for.
So good onya.
His wandering away from the group to be photographed in Italy was indeed sad.
I think the Russians will have settled the matter long before then. They have a "vote" in this thing as well. Also, Trump may decide to ignore it, if and when he is elected, which I think likely. Even a reelected Joe Biden (or his advisors) may decide this agreement is more of a burden than a benefit. But it seems like some kind of commitment, so good enough.
Biden commits us to another decade of forever war, a war that will most likely last longer than him and a war that may very well bring on a worldwide nuclear war. Why do we let a lifelong swamp warmonger who is too senile to be prosecuted rule over us? Why is the Democratic Party nominating him AGAIN and suppressing third parties off the ballot?
Biden and Zelensky agree the most on one major point. They both don't give a rat's A$$ about the poor Ukrainians. If I were Ukrainian and heard "10 More Years," I would be looking for the closest mine to step on.
"I would be looking for the closest mine to step on."
Reminds me of when Ukraine was doing their "counteroffensive" that their good friends, the US, encouraged them to do. Without air support and without mine clearing equipment. One of Ukraine's commanders was bitching about losing so many troops walking through minefields and the US' response was that they feared Ukraine was becoming "casualty adverse". So sure, why not stay in bed with those who care about you like the good old US of A!
One thing I don't understand is why the US & Britain insisted on that offensive, when even a non-expert like me could predict a debacle for the Ukrainians. The Summer 2023 offensive was a postponed "third prong" of the 2022 counteroffensive that retook parts of Kherson and Kharkiv. Those 2 counteroffensives proved so costly to the Ukrainians that they had to postpone that third offensive towards the Azov. In the meantime, the Russians built the Surovikin Line of fortifications in preparation for just such an eventuality. Why would the Ukrainians, or their Western sponsors, wish to attack the enemy where they were expecting it, and in the teeth of solid fortifications, with no real means of breaching them?
I look to our country, to be one of peace, truth and moral integrity, without such qualities, we would, indeed, be truly lost.
Then we are truly lost.
Yep, that ship has sailed.
What?
Where are we?
Good question! I think it depends on the questioner, as our foreign policy apparatus is navigating a sea full of icebergs.
"Where are we?"
In La La Land…!
You have a choice of living in a true peaceful country until the imperialism and hegemony collapses…!
Hey no selling Chinese condos allowed here.
I was mostly referring to central America countries close to US such as Belize, Costa Rica, etc…!
Bilateral means two-way. So, what is Ukraine supposed to do for us?
Allow us to extract wealth from natural resources, launder money back to the MIC and private vultures and sacrifice their lives for the richest in the US to weaken Russia and cling to hegemony.
Russia has a little to say about that. To think that the world thought that when the Soviet Union dissolved the Cold War apparatus could be dismantled, peace would rein. Leave it to the good old U.S. of Amnesia to f*ck it up.
Die in large numbers.
One old dotard makes major decision https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0cd98b50944ee4ef0095069e5081bef0952f4d4a2b0578e50b8ae6501ba8d33.jpg in a 'democracy' for 330 million people who dont get a say in the matter? mmmm
Nothing but a PR stunt…!
The deal says that if Ukrainian territory is attacked in the future, the two parties should hold consultations within 24 hours, but it does not provide a mutual defense guarantee.
The text says the US and Ukraine recognize the agreement as “supporting a bridge to Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO Alliance,” but it doesn’t outline a clear path to Ukraine’s membership. It only repeats a vague promise NATO members gave to Ukraine at the Vilnius summit last year that they would eventually invite Ukraine to join “when Allies agree and conditions are met.”
In other words, Ukraine signed an agreement to continue to be used as fodder with the same "guarantees" that they had before they signed the agreement. None.
Very good analysis. Double speak by the U.S. leadership.
Yes. The USA is actually pretty careful about that kind of thing. The USA, for example, never had an enforceable treaty obligation to defend South Vietnam.
https://history.state.gov/h…
"Since South Viet-Nam is not a party to the Southeast Asia Treaty, our obligation under the Treaty does not run directly to South Viet-Nam. Authorities on international law generally agree that only parties (and not 'third-party beneficiaries') acquire rights under a treaty."
And did not have such an obligation with respect to South Koeaa in 1950. Indeed, even now, the State Dept characterizes the bilateral state of affairs as:
REPUBLIC OF KOREA TREATY (BILATERAL)
A treaty signed October 1, 1953, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and that each Party would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
PARTIES: United States, Korea
https://2009-2017.state.gov…
Notice that, other than with respect to NATO members, the USA is not actually treaty bound to come to the defense of ANYONE, including nations that are commonly referred to as "close allies" of the USA: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the SEATO powers, the Phillipines, and the nations of the Western Hemisphere. And I don't see Israel or Saudi Arabia, and other supposedly close allies of the US on the list, either.
Perhaps needless to say, the US had no such obligation with respect to Afghanistan, either.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-r… .
The USA, no matter what it claims, is almost always in a position, not only practically, but legally, to "cut and run" from its clients, allies, "partners," stooges, whatever you want to call them. The Ukraine is no exception. Why would it be? It is useful to the USA to poke the Russians with. Beyond that? It is more of a drain than anything else.
Be nice if Biden signed a 10 year deal for the citizens of the U.S.
Be nice if Biden resigned.
Which doesn't mean crap.
Joey Biden will soon die of old age and stupidity. Zelesnsky will soon be hung by Ukrainians who are tired of his destructive actions while sucking up money from America like a whore in a seaport.
Any legitimate contract requires both signers to be mentally competent. That rules out Biden. A legitimate agreement must also be signed by a legitimate representative of the country. That rules out Zelensky. So we have a mentally incompetent signer and an illegitimate signer both signing a 10-year security pact that's null and void from the get-go.
Rape of American taxpayers codified for 10 years, FJB!
Dictators sign many agreements, but what’s the point when they can’t even run a country.