It’s all about the wording. 
In fact, as the agreement was taking shape, U.S. State Department lawyers highlighted a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance,” with the former entailing a military response by the co-signatory countries if one of the sides were to violate the agreement.
The parties eventually settled on softer language in the English version of the agreement, offering Ukraine “security assurance” that would simply specify the non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity.
That decision caused some consternation in Kyiv, which was initially reluctant to sign but backed down after U.S. President Bill Clinton implied that such refusal could damage bilateral Ukraine-U.S. relations, according to those involved in the negotiations.
But even at the time historians already saw the weakness of the agreement being exposed: The Memorandum offered no guarantee of intervention.
“It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine,” Stephen MacFarlane, professor of international relations specializing in the former Soviet Union at St Anne’s College, Oxford, told FRANCE 24 back in 2014. “Kerry’s harsh remarks on what is going on in Ukraine indicate a degree of resolve, but at the end of the day, what can you do?”
The U.S. and the U.K. were among the co-signatories, but stopped short of providing “guarantees” (which would have entailed a direct military intervention) and instead offered “assurances,” a term that left some wiggle room for a response to potential aggression from Moscow.
Når Biden så går ut og sier til Russland, før krigen startet at USA ikke kom til å gripe inn militært, så var veien åpen for Russland.
Apropos Donald og hans forhold til putin, denne dukket opp på BlueSky nå nettopp
