I see nothing about coming to the aid of Ukraine unless it is subject to nuclear aggression. Conventional conquest is A-OK.

> I see nothing about coming to the aid of Ukraine

Red herring. The text is a commitment to respect territorial integrity (as nekcihc correctly said and you questioned) not to aid it.

In particular:

2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

That's Russia guaranteeing that "that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

None of their weapons, not just nuclear.

And the us isn't using their weapons against Ukraine. They are fully respecting their boundaries, just not going to war over them. Russia is clearly in violation, not the USA

> Russia is clearly in violation, not the USA

Of course. Nobody claimed otherwise. The argument made by nekcihc

with this agreement US has signed a trap, because apparently that also means, that US signed treaties are not worth anything

is not that the US is violating the agreement; it is that an agreement signed by the US (among others) has been continuously violated (by Russia) since 2014 so "US signed treaties are not worth anything".