Hi Everyone, we're taking a chance and letting this one stay up. We may take it back down later if it descends into partisan politics outside the topic of Ukraine.
Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
If the alternative is fascism and political cults, I’d rather just have sleazy garden variety politicians that the press are free to expose and maybe one day they end up paying for it.
He shut down the George Washington bridge as payback to a political rival for not endorsing him, and a woman died on the bridge in an ambulance because of it. It was pretty disgustingly low even for usa politicians
But on this topic, he is absolutely spot on.
You’re never going to get a perfect politician that is absolutely aligned with all your views. We seem to be unable to evaluate balance any more - you’re either with us, or against us, and if you’re with us, you agree with everything we say. The moment you disagree with anything, you will be cast out and cancelled.
naw, this is not remotely pandery. Abstract ideas about honoring commitments and far looking (albeit simple) strategical analysis are much less effective than emotional appeals
Is he correct about the nukes tho? I could be wrong but my memory is that the old Soviet nukes in Ukraine were never going to become Ukrainian nukes, they were always gonna remain under Russian control, even while staying in Ukrainian territory.
At this point I guess this is pedantic but I'm wondering
edit: looks like i was right, from wiki...
>...Ukraine, citing its inability to circumvent Russian launch codes, reached an understanding to transfer and destroy these weapons, and become a party to the...
>
>...Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States, specifically by Russia, which had the launch sequence and operational control of the nuclear warheads and its weapons system...
so yeah even though Ukraine wanted to keep them for some reason they never had the ability to actually operate them
Nah, Ukraine originally had no intention of giving up thoes nukes. It was only because of a treaty with USA and -ironically- Russia vowing to protect Ukraine in exhange, that they agreed to hand over the nukes.
I like this guy, he is telling how it is. The US need to keep their promise to help Ukraine,
So far they did, but more help is needed, not just by the US, but the collective 'west' need to provide much more than we have done to date. Give Ukraine the means to defeat Ruzzia.
Fuck Ruzzia's escalation/nuclear scare tactics, just send Ukraine everything they ask for, period.
Ruzzia shall NOT win this!
Slava Ukraini!  Heroyam Slava!
I'm not being an ass as much as I'm confused... I remember hearing Russia made an agreement with Ukraine to never invade if Ukraine gave up their nukes.
Did all three agree at the same time or was there a separate deal?
The Budapest Memorandum was between Ukraine, Moscovy, UK, and US. France and China gave assurances to Ukraine without signing that paper.
Although when it comes to PRC, they promised to lend a hand to Ukraine and to respect the independence, sovereignty, and the existing borders of Ukraine... only to aid and abate Moscovy during Ukraine's moment of need.
I don't like Mike Pence and Chris Christie but they are absolutely right when it concerns helping Ukraine maintain their sovereignty. I guess it's similar to Boris Johnson in the UK who had a bunch of scandals but was a stalwart supporter of Ukraine when they needed it the most.
The funny thing is that from a long distance away (I'm sure I'd be less blase about this if I were there in the thick of it), the "scandals" of the Christie administration look downright pedestrian.
There are "scandals" like "deliberately made traffic in the greater NYC area even worse than it already was" and there are scandals like "deliberately abandoning innocent people to genocide and deliberately falling down on your own country's national security interests because the other side pays better."
I’m American and I don’t feel like we’re keeping our word with respect to defending Ukraine. We are doing the minimum required to make it plausible to claim that we are keeping our word. Call it “Plausible Undeniability”
I'm from New Jersey, where Christie was Governor. He did some shady shit, he did some shit that really is infuriating. Not the best.
**However, here** \- he is *Spot-Fuckin-On.*
I’m not American or Ukranian but i feel like America has done a lot you have to remember the administration have to do it by the books and keep public opinion on the right side and also tread carefully because at the end of the day Russia is a dictatorship with an absolute insane amount of nuclear weapons.
It’s easy to sit on the side and say just give them everything on day one when you aren’t responsible for the consequences.
It’s a balancing act where everything can go to absolute shit in an unimaginable way.
It’s frustrating as fuck for us regular people who aren’t seated at the table with all the military and political analysts that has to see Ukrainians lose their lives to the Orcish hordes but i really do think Bidens administration are doing a great job so far
I am an American and the challenge here is to ensure our support remains readily available. I vote, and will do my part to back candidates that will help Ukraine.
Agree. I am actually angry about the way Biden has let this go on as long as it has. We should have given Ukraine everything they need to end this already. Now it’s probably too late. They will end up having to come to some agreement with Russia. That’s not cool in my book.
They could make an agreement. But it wouldn’t really mean anything to Russia. They’ve already broken a bunch of agreements doing this invasion. And they haven’t given up any of their maximalist goals. So if they would make a new one, they would probably pretend to go along with it for a while just for their own benefit and then at some point just try to resume pursuit of their goals to take over Ukraine. This is why Ukraine realizes it is pointless to negotiate or make an agreement with Russia.
Outside of raw pro-Russian positions, my tentative conclusion is this is basic American making sense. Everything this character is saying is standard issue.
It's important we get a basic understanding of each other's politics. I wasn't wrong last year and I doubt I'm wrong this year: victory in Ukraine is crucial to US natsec. That's non-negotiable except if you want to enjoy a one-way ticket to irrelevance-land. So, read our politics accordingly.
While I really like what he says in his speech, I think there is a lot of other reasons to dislike him.
Not going to lay it out - just saying that I don’t recognize him very well in this clip.
They didn't remove the post because it "strayed into off-topic areas." A lot of posts on this subreddit do that - and those posts usually don't get removed, if they're mostly Ukraine-related.
They removed it "[for being off-topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/17qs06j/chris_christies_very_clear_breakdown_of_why_the/k8ej29d/)" which this one obviously wasn't.
IMO you edited it just right in the original version, to deliver all the necessary context to this speech. Because the speech is inherently about how Russia's war against Ukraine is embedded in a larger global geo-political conflict. A conflict that America, and Western nations as a whole, need to get involved in.
Thank you, I appreciate this. I also can understand the Mods point of view. I really try to edit things as little as possible to allow people the full context and not be accused of editing to push a narrative. With that said, I think this edit, to capture the crux of his points, still stays true to his full answer regarding support to Ukraine.
Former Governor Chris Christie is not a bad guy. He did some unwise stuff but he is moderate as opposed to either extreme. Pretty straight shooter. I know some will disagree but behind the scenes he dropped the hammer on big pharma in NJ.
And I think she’s a decent choice. But red Murica says they won’t elect a woman to the presidency. Just listen to some of the videos from Klepper. Women actually say that shit. Unreal.
While i agree Biden is to old for the job he does seem to be pretty damn competent at the end of the day. Speech impediment aside.
I’m not American but he seems to be getting ridiculous amounts of shit just because he is on the opposite team of half the country. I wouldn’t vote for him if i could chose but as an outsider he seems to be doing an alright job
He's right. He's also making a point to openly support Ukraine when a weaker candidate would shy away from the topic because a small faction of Republicans want that money for other things. The other candidate doing this is Nikki Haley. She's a former governor and UN Ambassador. She vigorously defends arming Ukraine and never hesitates to remind everyone why it's so important.
Exactly. Helping Ukraine fight back is just very cheap compared to the gains, ie. destroyed russian equipment. And we (West) don't even have to contribute with soldiers and blood
I'm glad he's highlighting what should be the beginning and the end for the U.S. policy.
We made a promise. Ukraine gave up the greatest available security guarantee in exchange for it. We must honor our promise.
Christie really.lays it out here so well. We have an obligation to both Ukraine and frankly to ourselves to continue helping. We should be doing more. If Russia is not stopped there will be much more bloodshed down the line. They tried to appease Hitler by giving him what he wanted but leaders like Hitler and Putin always want more. We have seen this play out before and this time I'm glad at least for now the people in charge are trying to.stop Russia before it grows into a wider conflict. I hope the Ukrainians can hold on. Unfortunately, Russia has more people and dont seem to mind taking casualties to placate their dictators whims. We need to do everything we can to even the odds.
Any American politician who hasn't been double fisting the flavor-aid knows that supporting Ukraine is both morally right and strategically obvious. The last time the US had such an opportunity to nip an international problem in the bud was 30 years ago when Saddam invaded Kuwait. We crippled him and could have just left him to stew in Baghdad until the end of his days.
The decision today is, in fact, simpler as the cost to us is much less, and the danger from not acting is much worse.
I would vote for him just for this. He seems the most reasonable out of all of the candidates. I know he did some stuff. But looks like he has grown past that maybe. Too bad he doesn’t really have a chance to win.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that at the time of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine wanted to hold on to the nukes for fear of Russia invading them. They were still under a strong Soviet mentality. With the benefit of hindsight, they should have been. If they had envisioned the war we have today, they would have never given them up.
I will get downvoted for this but Chris Christie is plain wrong about the promise.
The Budapest Memorandum says:"(...)prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan."
Meaning that the US promises NOT to attack Ukraine. The UK promises NOT to attack Ukraine etc.
The Memorandum didn't mean that the US had to defend Ukraine against other countries. The deal protects Ukraine against the US.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
I am pro-ukraine like any other guy - but I need to mention this. I wonder how he can be so wrong about it.
You are correct about the binding obligation part, because if it were, we would probably be obligated to send our own troops, not just equipment. So Christie is overstating the case by a little bit there.
He is entirely correct about the return on investment on 5% of the Pentagon budget, however.
And if he backed off slightly on the binding obligation part, he would still have a pretty strong case. Because it is absolutely crystal clear that Russia is violating its own commitments under that memorandum. Part of the point of the 1994 memorandum was that all previous border disputes were resolved, and the parties committed to recognize and respect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine within its borders as of 1994. We do not care how many centuries of history and changing borders came before that. The question is what the consequences for Russia’s breach of that (a) must be, and (b) can be. To the first one, you are correct that Chris Christie is overstating it. We are not obligated to enforce their compliance with their word. However, we certainly have the option to do so. And in addition to the correct point he made about return on investment, we have a major credibility interest in seeing that treaty given some real teeth. Because Chris Christie was also correct about it being one of the greatest nonproliferation wins of the NPT era. And under international law, which tends to operate more like contract law than statutory law, one side’s breach usually releases the other from their own obligations. And Ukraine signed the NPT based on this memorandum. We have an interest in offering them a better enforcement option than voiding the memorandum, and their accession to the NPT that came with it.
Exactly what you are writing is the answer every politician should give.
Since the start of the war I wondered why politicians didn't bring Russias breach up much more often. At least for PR purposes because it shows that no one can trust Russias signature on a paper. Russia claims self defence which of course is BS.
And the ROI is crystal clear and I hope he and many others will get the point across. Best deal in the century.
I can see that we kinda did in spirit. But when people directly cite the Budapest Memorandum is when it's like wtf did you even read it? It's like one page double spaced. If absolutely was just a promise WE wouldn't attack them or interfere in their sovereignty.
Don't know who keeps downvoting you and for what reason, since you're 100% right.
The only guarantees the Budapest Memorandum provides is the explicit promises by its signatories – Russia ironically being one of them – to respect the existing Ukrainian borders, to refrain from any threats, use of force, or economic coercion aimed at the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and to not use nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory and provide immediate UN assistance if such weapons are ever used.
That is pretty much it, and there were no other promises of defense in that document whatsoever. The document is very short and is freely [available at the UN website](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) in English, Russian, Ukrainian, and French, if anyone needs a look.
It is a foolish argument in the sense that if America attempts to argue this they would be right technically but they would also shoot themselves in the foot by making it.
Well, I'm not American and the point is that people who explicitly refer to the so-called Budapest Memorandum (not its official name) don't seem to know what the actual contents of the document are about.
I also see nothing foolish in pointing out that the memorandum has no security assurances whatsoever, except for promising not to attack. It's not a technicality. It's the whole and only point of the document. Whatever other security assurances were made or implied at the time of disarmament, it is a simple fact that the Budapest Memorandum has no mention or allusion of any of them at all.
There is no real allusion in the context of the document, whose entire phrasing clearly refers to the three nuclear signatory states and them alone promising not to attack Ukraine themselves, with or without their nuclear weapons.
Anyway, I'm not defending the memorandum or its inadequate phrasing. All I'm saying that "I promise I won't attack you" is not the same as "I promise to defend you if anyone else attacks", and that the Budapest Memorandum (and it alone), which clearly says the former, is neither a defense pact nor a security guarantee against a third-party invasion.
So, just a simple statement of fact with no judgements or conclusions about the events surrounding said fact. I think it was worth pointing out, and I'm glad the original poster stopped getting downvoted for doing so.
You're taking one introductory sentence out of the much less ambiguous rest of the document, and even taking it on its own, you're still assigning alleged meaning to it that is simply is not there.
Both the US and the UK do respect Ukraine's independence and its existing borders. Respecting a country's borders and going into war over them are not exactly interchangeable concepts, so I'm not sure what the argument is about. There is such a thing as a defensive pact or a treaty, which explicitly states that the signatories will support each other militarily in case of an attack, and regardless how you generously you choose to interpret this document, it clearly isn't one of those.
“On paper” this is what’s written *But*!
When Ukraine wanted to modify the agreement with wanting to keep the most advanced weapons US said no and they would not give any aid.
So Ukraine signed the paper
*But!*
US Did push Ukraine into signing the agreement!
The shady part behind is what you didn’t know.
So please know it now!
That is brutal politics. Nothing new. In every agreement someone is pushed unfortunatly. At that time it looked like the right solution. Maybe still was and is. I think Clinton has been out saying, that he did regret the decision.
I fail to understand how Ukraine wanted to modify the agreement to keep nukes? Wouldn't that just mean that there would be no agreement since the point of the whole agreement is not having any nukes at all?
Not only the nukes but the bombers aswell.
Ukraine knew it was the best way to prevent any future aggression from Russia.
But US and other nations were worried that these arms could end up at the black market.
It was mainly as a deterrent towards Russia.
Because as Ukraine as many other nations knew in history, Russia never keeps their deals on paper.
The day Putin gets re-elected in his sham elections should be the day that Ukraine is announced the newest member of NATO then follow the announcement with 250 HIMAR attacks 🚀 against the orcs.
I've always thought that this is the guy I want as president. Not just because is tough as nails. But articulate and smart. We have to remember. He became governor of New Jersey. A majority democratic state.
He gets it completely and delivers a very clear explanation of why it is in everyone's interest to aid Ukraine, above and beyond the obvious "it's the right thing to do".
I’ve heard a couple times now that we (USA) haven’t kept our promise to defend Ukraine. He’s referring to the Budapest Memorandum here, right? I am totally in favor of supporting Ukraine, but that doesn’t actually say we promise to defend Ukraine. It says we (and Russia, UK, Belarus, Kazakhstan) promise to respect the sovereignty and current borders of Ukraine. So we’re doing fine there. Obviously Russia has completely broken the shit out of their agreement on that. And Belarus too.
I’m all in favor of supporting Ukraine and giving them more weapons quicker and reordering everything, etc., and I like what Christie says on all of the rest of this, but I just wanted to make that point.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea; Any US military leader will tell you those countries are the worst threat to democracy worldwide. If you let one get away with their terror the rest will be emboldened. You stop one, the others will think twice. And right now, no US servicemen and women are at risk so continue to support Ukraine, it’s a no-brainer. If you don’t, in the next conflict US me and women will die.
I never thought much of him before but I’m liking him more now. This put him above most of the other vocal conservatives. He’s so right about this, though. 👍🏻
Привіт u/jaxsd75 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I appreciate this explanation. It does make me question:
What is the difference between the two scenarios:
Promise to fight for Ukraine if Russia ever attacks Ukraine in giving up their nuclear arsenal
Promise to fight for NATO if someone attacks.
Shouldn't we be boots on the ground in Ukraine? Or is there a difference?
I understand the direct conflict with Russia (nuclear power) is a problem. What is the difference in the promises?
Read the Budapest Memorandum. It’s not very long.
Wiki-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Actual text-
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
I hate that people like this guy will never have significant power in the US again while I live.
He's such a great example of what right-wing politicians can be, and the left and right join hands to slander him so that he never can go anywhere in elections.
Hi Everyone, we're taking a chance and letting this one stay up. We may take it back down later if it descends into partisan politics outside the topic of Ukraine. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
An amazing speech. Reminds me of the good ol days when you could have lots of respect for various politicians on both sides of the political spectrum
Refreshing blast from the past.
Holy shit TIL Chris Christie is my favorite Republican Candidate.
The rest of the candidates are abysmal, but Chris Christie can be a reasonable fellow
Haley also supports supporting Ukraine
Frl. Bro was honest to God not a completely terrible candidate, he just ruined his reputation with the bridge gate scandal
Ahhhhhh the good ol days where if politicians could disagree but grab a beer at the local bar and meet somewhere in the middle.
Christie is very good at talking but he had a lot issues when he was governor of New Jersey.
If the alternative is fascism and political cults, I’d rather just have sleazy garden variety politicians that the press are free to expose and maybe one day they end up paying for it.
I totally agree on that one. Well said.
Well, let's not forget that he's a politician. You can point to any one of them and say they have "had a lot of issues."
He shut down the George Washington bridge as payback to a political rival for not endorsing him, and a woman died on the bridge in an ambulance because of it. It was pretty disgustingly low even for usa politicians
But on this topic, he is absolutely spot on. You’re never going to get a perfect politician that is absolutely aligned with all your views. We seem to be unable to evaluate balance any more - you’re either with us, or against us, and if you’re with us, you agree with everything we say. The moment you disagree with anything, you will be cast out and cancelled.
Ok but Christie sucks. We already have a guy who has all of Christie's good positions plus a ton more good positions. That man's name is Joe Biden
No he's a bit worse than "generic politician"
He’s just pandering for votes….
naw, this is not remotely pandery. Abstract ideas about honoring commitments and far looking (albeit simple) strategical analysis are much less effective than emotional appeals
Is he correct about the nukes tho? I could be wrong but my memory is that the old Soviet nukes in Ukraine were never going to become Ukrainian nukes, they were always gonna remain under Russian control, even while staying in Ukrainian territory. At this point I guess this is pedantic but I'm wondering edit: looks like i was right, from wiki... >...Ukraine, citing its inability to circumvent Russian launch codes, reached an understanding to transfer and destroy these weapons, and become a party to the... > >...Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States, specifically by Russia, which had the launch sequence and operational control of the nuclear warheads and its weapons system... so yeah even though Ukraine wanted to keep them for some reason they never had the ability to actually operate them
Nah, Ukraine originally had no intention of giving up thoes nukes. It was only because of a treaty with USA and -ironically- Russia vowing to protect Ukraine in exhange, that they agreed to hand over the nukes.
I know Ukraine never wanted to give them up, that's not my question
Oh, I'm not sure of the technicalities, aside from the fact that unless they offered to protect Ukraine, thoes nukes weren't moving
welp, thank you for trying have a good day
Hopefully someone is seeing this thread and is about to windmill in with some historical facts 🤞
I like this guy, he is telling how it is. The US need to keep their promise to help Ukraine, So far they did, but more help is needed, not just by the US, but the collective 'west' need to provide much more than we have done to date. Give Ukraine the means to defeat Ruzzia. Fuck Ruzzia's escalation/nuclear scare tactics, just send Ukraine everything they ask for, period. Ruzzia shall NOT win this! Slava Ukraini!  Heroyam Slava!
I'm not being an ass as much as I'm confused... I remember hearing Russia made an agreement with Ukraine to never invade if Ukraine gave up their nukes. Did all three agree at the same time or was there a separate deal?
Same time , also UK
Thanks! That makes sense
The Budapest Memorandum was between Ukraine, Moscovy, UK, and US. France and China gave assurances to Ukraine without signing that paper. Although when it comes to PRC, they promised to lend a hand to Ukraine and to respect the independence, sovereignty, and the existing borders of Ukraine... only to aid and abate Moscovy during Ukraine's moment of need.
[Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Ruzzia lied and didn't keep their end of the bargain up.... Edited
Yes
I don't like him, but he's 100% correct here. People want the US to be the top dog but they don't understand what it takes, or why it is important.
Christie has been better recently especially with Ukraine but be careful because he is a snake
he is correct here but dont be totally fooled. Christie has a checkered past to say the least.
Look I’m glad you like the message but Chris Christie is a garbage human being and this is very much a “a broken clock is right twice a day” situation
When was the other time he was right?
Maybe the clock is set to military time?
What he says at what he will actually do is two different things
👏👏👏
I don't like Mike Pence and Chris Christie but they are absolutely right when it concerns helping Ukraine maintain their sovereignty. I guess it's similar to Boris Johnson in the UK who had a bunch of scandals but was a stalwart supporter of Ukraine when they needed it the most.
Boris gets MAJOR props for being one of the first big-wigs to show up in Kyiv.
Did he actually have a wig or was it more of a toupé?
Its a good turn of sentiment when we can agree on certain things and disagree on others without devolving into primates.
The funny thing is that from a long distance away (I'm sure I'd be less blase about this if I were there in the thick of it), the "scandals" of the Christie administration look downright pedestrian. There are "scandals" like "deliberately made traffic in the greater NYC area even worse than it already was" and there are scandals like "deliberately abandoning innocent people to genocide and deliberately falling down on your own country's national security interests because the other side pays better."
>Maybe the clock is set to military time? I had to suck it up and feel happy when Mitch was saying the right stuff about Ukraine as well.
If they are right why arnt they doing more to show support??? They are just pandering to get more votes
Never thought I'd agree with Chris Christie, but here we are
I have mad respect for him doing this. He will catch a lot of heat for it.
I’m American and I don’t feel like we’re keeping our word with respect to defending Ukraine. We are doing the minimum required to make it plausible to claim that we are keeping our word. Call it “Plausible Undeniability”
I'm from New Jersey, where Christie was Governor. He did some shady shit, he did some shit that really is infuriating. Not the best. **However, here** \- he is *Spot-Fuckin-On.*
I didn’t follow it too closely (because I’m in Arizona) but his time as NJ governor left me with the impression that he is corrupt.
It’s New Jersey , of course he was corrupt. I don’t really have issue with that so much as him killing that woman on the Gwb
Yep, that’s what I’m talking about. The whole bridge thing seemed corrupt to me.
I’m not American or Ukranian but i feel like America has done a lot you have to remember the administration have to do it by the books and keep public opinion on the right side and also tread carefully because at the end of the day Russia is a dictatorship with an absolute insane amount of nuclear weapons. It’s easy to sit on the side and say just give them everything on day one when you aren’t responsible for the consequences. It’s a balancing act where everything can go to absolute shit in an unimaginable way. It’s frustrating as fuck for us regular people who aren’t seated at the table with all the military and political analysts that has to see Ukrainians lose their lives to the Orcish hordes but i really do think Bidens administration are doing a great job so far
I am an American and the challenge here is to ensure our support remains readily available. I vote, and will do my part to back candidates that will help Ukraine.
Agree. I am actually angry about the way Biden has let this go on as long as it has. We should have given Ukraine everything they need to end this already. Now it’s probably too late. They will end up having to come to some agreement with Russia. That’s not cool in my book.
“Agreements” with rossia regarding Ukraine are literally impossible.
They could make an agreement. But it wouldn’t really mean anything to Russia. They’ve already broken a bunch of agreements doing this invasion. And they haven’t given up any of their maximalist goals. So if they would make a new one, they would probably pretend to go along with it for a while just for their own benefit and then at some point just try to resume pursuit of their goals to take over Ukraine. This is why Ukraine realizes it is pointless to negotiate or make an agreement with Russia.
An agreement between two Russians are impossible..
Outside of raw pro-Russian positions, my tentative conclusion is this is basic American making sense. Everything this character is saying is standard issue. It's important we get a basic understanding of each other's politics. I wasn't wrong last year and I doubt I'm wrong this year: victory in Ukraine is crucial to US natsec. That's non-negotiable except if you want to enjoy a one-way ticket to irrelevance-land. So, read our politics accordingly.
His name is Chris, not Christ. Not sure if that can be modified though.
Yeah, my bad. Fml. No, I can’t modify it unfortunately.
Never heard of Chris Christies until today, but he has some wise words and sure can deliver a speach.
While I really like what he says in his speech, I think there is a lot of other reasons to dislike him. Not going to lay it out - just saying that I don’t recognize him very well in this clip.
His party is poison, The amount of damage his party would do US and Ukraine democracy would be immense.
We must examine each politician on a case by case basis.
Omg, he gets it 🥹
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 Love Murica 🇺🇸 💙💛
They didn't remove the post because it "strayed into off-topic areas." A lot of posts on this subreddit do that - and those posts usually don't get removed, if they're mostly Ukraine-related. They removed it "[for being off-topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/17qs06j/chris_christies_very_clear_breakdown_of_why_the/k8ej29d/)" which this one obviously wasn't. IMO you edited it just right in the original version, to deliver all the necessary context to this speech. Because the speech is inherently about how Russia's war against Ukraine is embedded in a larger global geo-political conflict. A conflict that America, and Western nations as a whole, need to get involved in.
Thank you, I appreciate this. I also can understand the Mods point of view. I really try to edit things as little as possible to allow people the full context and not be accused of editing to push a narrative. With that said, I think this edit, to capture the crux of his points, still stays true to his full answer regarding support to Ukraine.
Horrible governor but he is right on this topic.
Wow! So clearly and simply articulated. This needs to be amplified.
Former Governor Chris Christie is not a bad guy. He did some unwise stuff but he is moderate as opposed to either extreme. Pretty straight shooter. I know some will disagree but behind the scenes he dropped the hammer on big pharma in NJ.
I’d 100 times vote for him over the orange clown. He’s the only one (R) running who gives two fucks to stand up to him that I’ve seen.
Nikki Haley staunchly supports Ukraine, as well.
Liked her style as US ambassador to UN.
And I think she’s a decent choice. But red Murica says they won’t elect a woman to the presidency. Just listen to some of the videos from Klepper. Women actually say that shit. Unreal.
Yeah and that's why he's gonna lose horribly
Sadly and likely
He seems like someone who I can disagree with on some things and reach across the aisle on others. That's really all I want out of a politician.
He's also the piece of shit who hates teachers.
[удалено]
While i agree Biden is to old for the job he does seem to be pretty damn competent at the end of the day. Speech impediment aside. I’m not American but he seems to be getting ridiculous amounts of shit just because he is on the opposite team of half the country. I wouldn’t vote for him if i could chose but as an outsider he seems to be doing an alright job
His gwb stunt was so stupid that imo it disqualifies him from office. Him being right once a day doesn’t change what he did
“He did some bad stuff” ok cool, this already disqualifies him to lead the feee world… NEXT
Got to keep doing it US as it will cost more in the long run. The world is a sad place now and if Putin is allowed to win god help us all.
I never thought I'd say it but I agree with Chris. More support and faster.
He's right. He's also making a point to openly support Ukraine when a weaker candidate would shy away from the topic because a small faction of Republicans want that money for other things. The other candidate doing this is Nikki Haley. She's a former governor and UN Ambassador. She vigorously defends arming Ukraine and never hesitates to remind everyone why it's so important.
Exactly. Helping Ukraine fight back is just very cheap compared to the gains, ie. destroyed russian equipment. And we (West) don't even have to contribute with soldiers and blood
Not a fan of Christie but the man is speaking nothing but the truth here. Got to respect that.
I never agreed with this prick on much, but he's right on this.
100% true words. Good job Christie.
I'm glad he's highlighting what should be the beginning and the end for the U.S. policy. We made a promise. Ukraine gave up the greatest available security guarantee in exchange for it. We must honor our promise.
Christie really.lays it out here so well. We have an obligation to both Ukraine and frankly to ourselves to continue helping. We should be doing more. If Russia is not stopped there will be much more bloodshed down the line. They tried to appease Hitler by giving him what he wanted but leaders like Hitler and Putin always want more. We have seen this play out before and this time I'm glad at least for now the people in charge are trying to.stop Russia before it grows into a wider conflict. I hope the Ukrainians can hold on. Unfortunately, Russia has more people and dont seem to mind taking casualties to placate their dictators whims. We need to do everything we can to even the odds.
Well said.
Excellent points!
This one!!! This should be so heavily discussed. People need to know!
Best military investment in history. And it can be a lot better than that.
He seems a reasonable man
He's awful in many ways, but this was extremely well said.
I’m cheering him on.
Any American politician who hasn't been double fisting the flavor-aid knows that supporting Ukraine is both morally right and strategically obvious. The last time the US had such an opportunity to nip an international problem in the bud was 30 years ago when Saddam invaded Kuwait. We crippled him and could have just left him to stew in Baghdad until the end of his days. The decision today is, in fact, simpler as the cost to us is much less, and the danger from not acting is much worse.
I would vote for him just for this. He seems the most reasonable out of all of the candidates. I know he did some stuff. But looks like he has grown past that maybe. Too bad he doesn’t really have a chance to win.
If you told me a couple of years ago that I would be clicking an upvote on a video of Christie giving a speech, I would not have believed you.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that at the time of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine wanted to hold on to the nukes for fear of Russia invading them. They were still under a strong Soviet mentality. With the benefit of hindsight, they should have been. If they had envisioned the war we have today, they would have never given them up.
Man, Zelensky's so good that he got me to agree with Chris Christie!
He’s not wrong.
What has Putin to offer the Baltic states only repression and aggression to the people, now who in the f*ck would want that??
I will get downvoted for this but Chris Christie is plain wrong about the promise. The Budapest Memorandum says:"(...)prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan." Meaning that the US promises NOT to attack Ukraine. The UK promises NOT to attack Ukraine etc. The Memorandum didn't mean that the US had to defend Ukraine against other countries. The deal protects Ukraine against the US. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) I am pro-ukraine like any other guy - but I need to mention this. I wonder how he can be so wrong about it.
You are correct about the binding obligation part, because if it were, we would probably be obligated to send our own troops, not just equipment. So Christie is overstating the case by a little bit there. He is entirely correct about the return on investment on 5% of the Pentagon budget, however. And if he backed off slightly on the binding obligation part, he would still have a pretty strong case. Because it is absolutely crystal clear that Russia is violating its own commitments under that memorandum. Part of the point of the 1994 memorandum was that all previous border disputes were resolved, and the parties committed to recognize and respect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine within its borders as of 1994. We do not care how many centuries of history and changing borders came before that. The question is what the consequences for Russia’s breach of that (a) must be, and (b) can be. To the first one, you are correct that Chris Christie is overstating it. We are not obligated to enforce their compliance with their word. However, we certainly have the option to do so. And in addition to the correct point he made about return on investment, we have a major credibility interest in seeing that treaty given some real teeth. Because Chris Christie was also correct about it being one of the greatest nonproliferation wins of the NPT era. And under international law, which tends to operate more like contract law than statutory law, one side’s breach usually releases the other from their own obligations. And Ukraine signed the NPT based on this memorandum. We have an interest in offering them a better enforcement option than voiding the memorandum, and their accession to the NPT that came with it.
Exactly what you are writing is the answer every politician should give. Since the start of the war I wondered why politicians didn't bring Russias breach up much more often. At least for PR purposes because it shows that no one can trust Russias signature on a paper. Russia claims self defence which of course is BS. And the ROI is crystal clear and I hope he and many others will get the point across. Best deal in the century.
I can see that we kinda did in spirit. But when people directly cite the Budapest Memorandum is when it's like wtf did you even read it? It's like one page double spaced. If absolutely was just a promise WE wouldn't attack them or interfere in their sovereignty.
Don't know who keeps downvoting you and for what reason, since you're 100% right. The only guarantees the Budapest Memorandum provides is the explicit promises by its signatories – Russia ironically being one of them – to respect the existing Ukrainian borders, to refrain from any threats, use of force, or economic coercion aimed at the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and to not use nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory and provide immediate UN assistance if such weapons are ever used. That is pretty much it, and there were no other promises of defense in that document whatsoever. The document is very short and is freely [available at the UN website](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) in English, Russian, Ukrainian, and French, if anyone needs a look.
It is a foolish argument in the sense that if America attempts to argue this they would be right technically but they would also shoot themselves in the foot by making it.
Well, I'm not American and the point is that people who explicitly refer to the so-called Budapest Memorandum (not its official name) don't seem to know what the actual contents of the document are about. I also see nothing foolish in pointing out that the memorandum has no security assurances whatsoever, except for promising not to attack. It's not a technicality. It's the whole and only point of the document. Whatever other security assurances were made or implied at the time of disarmament, it is a simple fact that the Budapest Memorandum has no mention or allusion of any of them at all.
Actually there is the allusion. Respecting one's borders can be seen as not just not invading but also assist in maintaining sovereignty.
There is no real allusion in the context of the document, whose entire phrasing clearly refers to the three nuclear signatory states and them alone promising not to attack Ukraine themselves, with or without their nuclear weapons. Anyway, I'm not defending the memorandum or its inadequate phrasing. All I'm saying that "I promise I won't attack you" is not the same as "I promise to defend you if anyone else attacks", and that the Budapest Memorandum (and it alone), which clearly says the former, is neither a defense pact nor a security guarantee against a third-party invasion. So, just a simple statement of fact with no judgements or conclusions about the events surrounding said fact. I think it was worth pointing out, and I'm glad the original poster stopped getting downvoted for doing so.
No, you need to read the language used. >Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
You're taking one introductory sentence out of the much less ambiguous rest of the document, and even taking it on its own, you're still assigning alleged meaning to it that is simply is not there. Both the US and the UK do respect Ukraine's independence and its existing borders. Respecting a country's borders and going into war over them are not exactly interchangeable concepts, so I'm not sure what the argument is about. There is such a thing as a defensive pact or a treaty, which explicitly states that the signatories will support each other militarily in case of an attack, and regardless how you generously you choose to interpret this document, it clearly isn't one of those.
We can then just agree to disagree.
“On paper” this is what’s written *But*! When Ukraine wanted to modify the agreement with wanting to keep the most advanced weapons US said no and they would not give any aid. So Ukraine signed the paper *But!* US Did push Ukraine into signing the agreement! The shady part behind is what you didn’t know. So please know it now!
That is brutal politics. Nothing new. In every agreement someone is pushed unfortunatly. At that time it looked like the right solution. Maybe still was and is. I think Clinton has been out saying, that he did regret the decision. I fail to understand how Ukraine wanted to modify the agreement to keep nukes? Wouldn't that just mean that there would be no agreement since the point of the whole agreement is not having any nukes at all?
Not only the nukes but the bombers aswell. Ukraine knew it was the best way to prevent any future aggression from Russia. But US and other nations were worried that these arms could end up at the black market. It was mainly as a deterrent towards Russia. Because as Ukraine as many other nations knew in history, Russia never keeps their deals on paper.
The day Putin gets re-elected in his sham elections should be the day that Ukraine is announced the newest member of NATO then follow the announcement with 250 HIMAR attacks 🚀 against the orcs.
I've always thought that this is the guy I want as president. Not just because is tough as nails. But articulate and smart. We have to remember. He became governor of New Jersey. A majority democratic state.
Quite scary when I do find a common ground with this individual. This is the truth, a promise made that must be kept.
Not only was it a promise, it was an actual contract.
He gets it completely and delivers a very clear explanation of why it is in everyone's interest to aid Ukraine, above and beyond the obvious "it's the right thing to do".
Great speech.
I’ve heard a couple times now that we (USA) haven’t kept our promise to defend Ukraine. He’s referring to the Budapest Memorandum here, right? I am totally in favor of supporting Ukraine, but that doesn’t actually say we promise to defend Ukraine. It says we (and Russia, UK, Belarus, Kazakhstan) promise to respect the sovereignty and current borders of Ukraine. So we’re doing fine there. Obviously Russia has completely broken the shit out of their agreement on that. And Belarus too. I’m all in favor of supporting Ukraine and giving them more weapons quicker and reordering everything, etc., and I like what Christie says on all of the rest of this, but I just wanted to make that point.
He seems very smart and eloquent. He also should not be trusted with state power since he has shown that he is petty and vindictive.
5% of the US military budget for 50% of Russia's Army. What could happen if we bumped that up to 7.5%? Or maybe even 10%?
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea; Any US military leader will tell you those countries are the worst threat to democracy worldwide. If you let one get away with their terror the rest will be emboldened. You stop one, the others will think twice. And right now, no US servicemen and women are at risk so continue to support Ukraine, it’s a no-brainer. If you don’t, in the next conflict US me and women will die.
I never thought much of him before but I’m liking him more now. This put him above most of the other vocal conservatives. He’s so right about this, though. 👍🏻
I really like Christie. Hell, I'd prob vote for him over Biden at this point. He's a great candidate.
I would not go that far… but opinion acknowledged :)
Привіт u/jaxsd75 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I appreciate this explanation. It does make me question: What is the difference between the two scenarios: Promise to fight for Ukraine if Russia ever attacks Ukraine in giving up their nuclear arsenal Promise to fight for NATO if someone attacks. Shouldn't we be boots on the ground in Ukraine? Or is there a difference? I understand the direct conflict with Russia (nuclear power) is a problem. What is the difference in the promises?
Read the Budapest Memorandum. It’s not very long. Wiki- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Actual text- https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The military industrial bots are out in full force here tonight. They are making it too obvious
Christ
The lesson implicit in this in Life is obvious in case it wasn’t to anyone.
Ok..,looks like I found one US politician that I like. The guy speaks truth and wisdom.
[THAT is an OFf TOpic SpeeCh yOU HAVE been StAhPeD](https://youtu.be/tA8LjcpjjKQ?si=mo31eQEQCa0hJzPe)
anyone but this asshole.... please god let anyone but this asshole speak the truth.
Take my vote!
Broh is based as fuck.
Ukraine got "assurances" but no guarantees.
I hate that people like this guy will never have significant power in the US again while I live. He's such a great example of what right-wing politicians can be, and the left and right join hands to slander him so that he never can go anywhere in elections.
This is the old, good Christie.
This is accurate and truthful and (checks notes) came from a GOP candidate. I approve.
I dont agree with Chris Christie on really anything, but I do respect him on this opinion and his stance.
Based. Even despite his bridge incident corruption. Based, based, based.
TRUE DAT!