President Biden and key European leaders reached an agreement to finance Ukraine with a loan of up to $50 billion, backed by the profits on frozen Russian assets.
Biden said in a news conference Thursday the loan would serve as a reminder to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “We’re not backing down,” he said. “In fact, we’re standing together against this illegal aggression.”
The agreement Reaffirms Ukraine will join NATO, and that the agreement will serve as a "bridge" to eventually bring Ukraine into NATO. So there's been no budge whatsoever on the sacrosanctity of that eternal principle.
The agreement also commits the US to restoring Ukraine's "territorial integrity" up to its "internationally recognized borders," which effectively means Ukraine's post-Soviet 1991 borders including Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk.
Before the news conference, Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bilateral security agreement that seeks to establish a long-term U.S. commitment to military aid for the embattled country. The pact says future U.S. administrations will work with Congress to provide funding and military support for Kyiv. It makes no new promises regarding Ukraine’s bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
@VOTA1 god1Y
How do you feel about using a country's frozen assets to finance another nation's defense, and what implications could this have on international relations?
@VOTA1 god1Y
Given the financial struggles within their own borders, should the U.S. and Europe prioritize aiding Ukraine with such substantial funds?
@VOTA1 god1Y
How does the promise of long-term military support to another country align with your views on peace and conflict resolution?
@VOTA1 god1Y
What are your thoughts on the commitment to restore a nation's borders to their state over 30 years ago, despite current territorial disputes and occupations?
@VOTA1 god1Y
Considering the commitment to eventually integrate Ukraine into NATO, do you believe this strengthens or endangers global security and stability?
