3 ms·

I've read this 3 time and I still don't get it. So you're saying the other Europeans have kept their promise by not invading Ukraine. Umm that sounds like the s

by yardie 9y ago

I've read this 3 time and I still don't get it. So you're saying the other Europeans have kept their promise by not invading Ukraine. Umm that sounds like the status quo not something you go through the trouble of writing a treaty for.

mikeash 9y ago
Most of Europe was not involved, but basically yes. In exchange for Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan giving up nuclear weapons, Russia, the US, and the UK agreed to respect their independence and sovereignty, not use military or economic force against them, and ask the UN Security Council to intervene if they are attacked by nuclear weapons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... The idea that the US was obligated to defend Ukraine against Russia is a common one, but as far as I can tell traces back to a misunderstanding of what that memorandum actually says.
- yardie 9y ago
  I thought the invasion of Crimea was to prevent Ukraine from getting too close to NATO. It appears to have worked.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I agree. There's no way NATO would bring Ukraine in now, since it would inevitably mean war with Russia for the whole alliance. Defensive alliances are tricky that way: the goal is to deter aggression, but if such an alliance looks to be coming but hasn't been set up, it can encourage aggression instead. Meta: I noticed my original reply above got downvoted. I wonder why. I just stated facts, with no real tone of any kind that I can tell.
user982 9y ago
The statement looks technically correct. The closest obligation of the Budapest Memorandum to a collective defense is the stipulation to go to the UNSC should the region "become a victim of an act of aggression". The US did so, fulfilling its part of the agreement, and the motion was of course instantly vetoed by Russia.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Note that the clause which says they must go to the UNSC only applies if Ukraine is victim of an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, so even that clause doesn't apply.
  - user982 9y ago
    That's true. There seemed to be some ambiguity in the statement, but the full text of the memorandum makes clearer that that clause is solely in a nuclear context.

by yardie 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

Most of Europe was not involved, but basically yes. In exchange for Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan giving up nuclear weapons, Russia, the US, and the UK agreed to respect their independence and sovereignty, not use military or economic force against them, and ask the UN Security Council to intervene if they are attacked by nuclear weapons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... The idea that the US was obligated to defend Ukraine against Russia is a common one, but as far as I can tell traces back to a misunderstanding of what that memorandum actually says.

yardie 9y ago
I thought the invasion of Crimea was to prevent Ukraine from getting too close to NATO. It appears to have worked.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I agree. There's no way NATO would bring Ukraine in now, since it would inevitably mean war with Russia for the whole alliance. Defensive alliances are tricky that way: the goal is to deter aggression, but if such an alliance looks to be coming but hasn't been set up, it can encourage aggression instead. Meta: I noticed my original reply above got downvoted. I wonder why. I just stated facts, with no real tone of any kind that I can tell.

user982 9y ago

The statement looks technically correct. The closest obligation of the Budapest Memorandum to a collective defense is the stipulation to go to the UNSC should the region "become a victim of an act of aggression". The US did so, fulfilling its part of the agreement, and the motion was of course instantly vetoed by Russia.

mikeash 9y ago
Note that the clause which says they must go to the UNSC only applies if Ukraine is victim of an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, so even that clause doesn't apply.
- user982 9y ago
  That's true. There seemed to be some ambiguity in the statement, but the full text of the memorandum makes clearer that that clause is solely in a nuclear context.