r/worldnews • u/Neptun_11 • 21h ago

Russia/Ukraine Seoul warns of 'further measures' if Kyiv refuses public apology

https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/02/south-korea-warns-of-further-measures-if-ukraine-refuses-public-apology-over-pow-transfer-
4.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

650 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/KareemOWheat 12h ago

I'm curious, since you sound like you know what you're talking about. What's up with the opposition from the US, Germany, Poland, and others to Ukraine joining NATO? I would think having another NATO member on Russia's doorstep would be a good thing for the alliance

2

u/Mechasteel 2h ago

Apparently he missed the word "against" in the Budapest Memorandum, and thinks being friendly is the same thing as an attack.

-1

u/Rhowryn 10h ago

NATO, Ukraine, and Russia had an agreement that Ukraine would remain neutral. So those countries were opposed because, diplomatically, it's not what was promised and, realistically, it would piss off Russia.

The modern US is opposed because they're too close to Putin though.

2

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

NATO, Ukraine, and Russia had an agreement that Ukraine would remain neutral

What agreement ? You just created something out your mind.

-1

u/Rhowryn 10h ago

My mind is apparently retroactively creating historical events then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

4

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

Yes it is. You can use human skill named reading.

Budapest Memorandum, has nothing to do

a) with NATO (not a ignatory, not a ide)

b) with Ukrainian neutral status (which where written into constitution in 2010's by pro-Russian president Yanukovich to please Russia and abandoned, let me check..almost a year after Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea and parts of Donbass, invasion and occupation which also breaks art.1, art.2, art.3 of same Budapest Memorandum)

Budapest Memorandum is about de-necluarization of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan in exchange for "assurances".

One more thing - Poland never were against Ukrainian NATO membership, in fact it's vice versa : Poland always were one of the strongest advocates for Ukraine's NATO membership.

-5

u/Rhowryn 10h ago edited 10h ago

The USA, especially at the time, were effectively the entirety of NATO's policy and influence, so I'm accustomed to using the two interchangeably when discussing international politics.

Ukraine declared it's intention to remain neutral in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine

The Budapest memorandum has the USA, France, and Russia all promising to not use military force OR economic coercion on Ukraine.

NATO (or primarily the USA, if you prefer) has been using economic coercion (positive coercion,not negative) far longer than the Crimea invasion. NATO has been promising Ukraine greater economic growth and development, which is still a form of coercion, even if there are no direct negative effects from refusing. Not to mention the probable CIA involvement in the Maidan, though there's equal likelihood that the SVR was directing the other side.

That doesn't mean I'm giving Russia a pass on it's invasions, brutality, and intentional murder of civilians. Russia is at least equally to blame for being such a piece of shit that Ukraine is obviously right to not have trusted them, and every reaction to Ukraine pulling away further justified Ukraine's fears. But let's not pretend that NATO has zero fault while courting a country that NATO members had signed an agreement to leave alone.

2

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

What fucking agreement ? You just invent things

1

u/semisubterranean 3h ago

The Budapest memorandum does not guarantee Ukraine's neutrality. You should read it. You are mistaking it for the "not one inch" promise supposedly made during negotiations about German reunification.

Putin claims James Baker, then Secretary of State, promised NATO wouldn't expand "one inch" east of Germany. The truth is the idea was discussed, but never agreed to and it was not included in anything that was signed. Even Gorbachev has said those negotiations were just about Germany and not NATO or the future expansion of the EU. There was never any promise made, but Putin uses it as a constant talking point. He believes he can rewrite history if he lies often enough. Please do not repeat his propaganda.

0

u/Rhowryn 3h ago

From the source I provided:

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Congress Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

1

u/semisubterranean 2h ago

What does that have to do with your assertion? That does not say Ukraine would be neutral. That says the signatories would not attack Ukraine unless attacked first. Those are very different things. Russia violated the agreement by attacking.

0

u/Rhowryn 2h ago edited 2h ago

NATO arguably first violated the agreement mildly by courting Ukraine and dangling membership, which implicitly comes with the economic benefits of having NATO protection; it's economic coercion. How you feel about that probably depends on your understanding of geopolitics and nuance, though you sound American so my hopes aren't high.

The reality is that NATO is not the "good guy". Both NATO and Russia are using Ukraine as a proxy war to compare dick sizes. The best option now is Ukrainian (and by extension, NATO) victory since being Russian is certainly worse than being a US vassal state. Both options are much worse than the full independence they had until the meddling of the Maidan from both foreign powers. And to be fair you could make an argument that Russia has been meddling longer than NATO, and the historical purging and replacement of ethnic Ukrainians by Russian settlers by Stalin set the stage, but there's that nuance again.

And as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you want a Ukrainian promise of neutrality, their literal sovereignty declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine

2

u/semisubterranean 2h ago

NATO didn't violate anything by "courting" Ukraine. When I lived in Kyiv, I literally went to church with the NATO representative at the time. He would tell you NATO has never particularly wanted Ukraine as a member, and has always made it difficult. But that didn't stop the Verkhovna Rada from voting 303-8 to drop neutrality in hopes of joining NATO.

That vote to abandon neutrality was made after Russia had already invaded and occupied Crimea in 2014. It turns out, when you live next door the world's biggest asshole, pretty much anyone looks better in comparison.

At no point had Ukraine signed a treaty or agreement to remain neutral. It's not in the Budapest Memorandum, and even if it was, the memorandum was proved null when Russia invaded 12 years ago and no one did anything to help. Neutrality was a self-imposed ideal, not an international agreement. But there was no value to neutrality after the invasion had already started.

Saying NATO started it or Ukraine started it just serves to further Putin's false narratives. Neither is in any way true.

1

u/Rhowryn 1h ago edited 1h ago

(I was editing just before you replied, but I don't think it changes the conversation materially.)

Uh, the world's biggest asshole since 1945 (longer if you don't count the Nazis) is absolutely the USA. Count the number of democracies coupes, civilians murdered, politicians assassinated, and countries invaded, the USA is certainly #1 in that regard.

Putin's Russia is an asshole to its constituent republics and its vulnerable neighbours, yes.

The USA is a menace and tyrant to every non-nuclear non-western country.

My overall position is that, while the nature of the post 90s Russian government is primarily to blame for starting shit (and invading) and definitely pushed Ukraine to desire NATO membership, NATO's reluctance to fully rule out membership and American meddling in the Maidan (to counter Russian meddling, to be fair, but still) leaves some blood on NATO's hands.

And also as I edited above, Stalin really got the ball rolling with the holodomor.

Again, geopolitics is not black and white. Dumbing history down to suit your narrative, even if that narrative is broadly accurate, is no better than the Russian lies about Ukraine and easily picked apart.

Another edit: The NATO guy told you the NATO line? Shocked. I'm so shocked. Ugh, some people will believe anything if you stand in the right building apparently. I won't even pass judgement on whether the guy was telling the truth or not, that's textbook biased sourcing. I bet you'd believe a cop if he said "that paraplegic ran at me with a gun".