US state dep't lawyers have generally understood "security assurance" to mean that we won't violate someone's territorial integrity, while "security guarantee" implies the use of military force to defend the security of a nation and her territorial integrity. unless and until we have a fully-autonomous military, this does, in fact, necessitate putting American servicemen at risk of death. this is why i think your analysis is a misread of the situation; i haven't seen media report this distinction well and it's hard to keep track of which treaty terms are vague sympathies with a general direction of action and which promise specific actions.

it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent and to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid they still want. since we are already well into the twelve figures w.r.t. aid to Ukraine it seems pretty reasonable. but i don't particularly think a minerals deal is worth sending young men to die halfway across the world in a border war over land the size of west virginia.

the saudi king was in his own cultural formalwear. the pope did the same. if zelensky wanted to dress down and call it "cultural formalwear", he should have tried an adidas tracksuit. what he did was simple disrespect. it's not the end of the world but i think he owes us more than this "great value steve jobs" routine. i dress better than that for a normal workplace.

"parroting russian talking points" isn't a good response or critique. i don't read RT or alt-right twitter. i agree we have some interest in keeping russia contained and it's generally a good move to put resources behind that. i do not think there's this odd moral obligation to do whatever it takes and back ukraine to the hilt. this is sort of a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know just made a good point" situation.

you can make a "what about czechoslovakia/poland/nazis" argument about heavy intervention in what would otherwise be any proxy war. you say czechoslovakia, i say vietnam, i say korea, i say the middle east.

the American interest in this war isn't so much "we love the ukraine" as "this is an effective way to cripple russia for the next decade by proxy". by doing so, we avoid that situation in a much smarter way than chamberlain. and because russia wasn't in that great of a spot to start with, a protracted war of attrition is really bad for her.

are you suggesting we should begin a war against russia, historically a massively losing proposition, over a couple oblasts of the ukraine? again, how many americans should we send off to die? how much should we weaken our resources for a much more concerning conflict with china?

It does not. Europe has been willing to send troops on the ground. The guarantee from the US could be in the form of equipment, air interdiction, etc. Note the the US already had guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty when it gave up its nukes. So no new treaty should even be necessary if the US only stuck to its words.

> it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent

No repayment was expected when the aid was given, otherwise it would have been given as loans.

Do you ask for repayment 2 years after giving people gifts? I would hate to be at your Christmas gathering.

> to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid

That's not how treaties work. You put, IN WRITING, something you agree to do and the other sides does too.

If Ukraine commits to give something while the US "feels good" about maybe doing something (or not, who knows?), that's not fair.

> what he did was simple disrespect

Musk holds conferences in the oval office in T-shirt and MAGA cap while his child scolds the president. Nobody stepped in to ask where was his suit, and certainly not the president.

a security guarantee necessitates a response adequate to maintain territorial integrity. i.e. in the current scenario we'd be obligated to send troops to stop the war of attrition and reverse the russian advance (which has continued since last year, if slowly.) that is precisely what zelensky wants. unfortunately for him, i don't value the ukraine enough to condemn my friends to go bleed out in an eastern european border state.

no repayment was demanded when the aid was given, true. however, the US changes leadership, and therefore policy, on a semi-regular basis. the condition of future aid is that past and future aid should be repaid to some extent, in some manner, at some point. rather than demanding cash or structuring a loan, the US proposed to find something else that would benefit both sides. implying that hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer dollars, at a time when boomer welfare is already bleeding the country dry, is equivalent to a Christmas gift is ridiculous. i think it was De Gaulle who said countries don't have friends, they have interests; foreign aid is a strategic tool and that alone, because the U.S. federal government is not a charitable organization.

you say "that's not how treaties work"; I say undeveloped nations have a long, long history of taking and later failing to repay loans from America or proxy organizations such as the IMF. if you're suggesting we restructure this as a loan, that seems like a monumentally poor investment, not to mention draining cash from a nation trying to rebuild is a similarly poor idea.

where did i say i approved of Musk's actions? i believe trump complemented zelensky's outfit today. i don't really care about what trump thinks of zelensky, musk, or anyone else's choice of presentation. i am not donald trump. i am saying i think it is disrespectful, doubly so given that he came calling with his hand out, again.

But more likely, US troops won't be directly on the front lines even after a peace. It adds too much risk of either (super)power escalating in the event of casualties.

the way i see this, it's fine if ukraine loses a little territory. since putin is an evil dictator and all, he can't especially afford to look weak, and anything less would back him into a corner. however, doing so is a risky move so we should hold off on that for another year or two until russia is truly crippled. ensure an economic depression and depletion of materiel that takes a decade to dig out of. by doing so, we also give the ukraine stronger security in fact, rather than merely on paper.

might be worth bargaining with the crimea: renounce claims to it in exchange for russia returning territory from the current war. realistically russia has wanted that spot at various points for hundreds of years as warm-water ports are too important for her.

i get that the point is to ensure peace after a ceasefire, but, as zelinsky said, russia has broken ceasefires before. we should not sign something like that simply on the assumption that it will make war too costly for russia. we should do so if and only if we're willing to engage in a shooting war/great-power conflict with russia over a couple oblasts. i don't think we're really willing to do that.