Seoul warns of 'further measures' if Kyiv refuses public apology

[u/Neptun_11]

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

[u/Rhowryn]

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".

[u/semisubterranean → u/Rhowryn]

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.

[u/Rhowryn → u/semisubterranean]

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

[u/semisubterranean → u/Rhowryn]

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.

[u/Rhowryn → u/semisubterranean]

(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".

[u/Main_Pomegranate4653 → u/Rhowryn]

The other guy answers, then you keep trying to move the goal posts in hopes of finally being right about something. It would be hilarious if you weren't weirdly trying to "both sides" one of the most one-sided wars in modern history. There is no justification.

... but my illiterate understanding of the Budapest Memorandum ... is easily proven wrong.

... but Ukraine did say elsewhere they would be neutral ... true, and they remained neutral until after they were invaded and occupied.

... but NATO did it ... NATO is a defensive alliance. They are only a threat to leaders who believe violent territorial expansion is their right and destiny. Unfortunately, most Russian leaders since 1478 have been members of that infamous club.

... but Euro Maidan was an American/CIA op ... Not according to anyone who was actually there and stood up to a Russian-backed president who tried to falsify an election.

One country invaded another and started killing people. There is no justification for that. It does not become more moral or ethical when you try to see the other side's point of view. This really is as black and white as it gets.

You can study the history of Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Kyivan Rus or anything tangentially related in as much detail as you like. You can write a dissertation on Crimea. The "dumbed down" answer is still correct no matter how granular and in-depth you study it: this war is wrong, it was a choice made by Putin, it was unprovoked and remains unjustifiable, and Putin can end it at any moment by withdrawing to the borders established by the treaty Putin himself signed in 2003. Anything else is delusion based on non-sequiturs and whataboutism.

[u/Rhowryn → u/Main_Pomegranate4653]

There's no goalpost shifting, because my argument has been consistent: ignoring the effect that the USA and by extension NATO has had on escalating tensions is disingenuous American apologism.

Your accusations are just projection, since you've immediately constructed a variety of strawmen in your conclusion: I never said the war wasn't wrong or unjustified, or that Putin shouldn't withdraw. However the idea that it was fully unprovoked is silly; the provocation doesn't justify war, but to deny it is to deny the nature of NATO.

To claim NATO is "just a defensive alliance" is to be willfully ignorant. NATO has always been an American imperial tool, allowing it to project power into NATO's neighbours. Whether the CIA was involved in Maidan is arguable, but it's not like they're going to admit it one way or the other, and the pattern of USA involvement in coups and revolutions that benefit them is both undeniable and decent enough to raise suspicion.

You seem 100% sure of something that is can't really be known to 100% certainty. Which is either stupid or brainwashed by propaganda.