4 ms·
Sadly, there was no such promise of defense if the treaty was breached: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memor
by miles 9y ago
Sadly, there was no such promise of defense if the treaty was breached:
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
- gcb0 9y agoby your (flawed) logic, US and UK should return all (or 1/3 to be extra fair in your twisted analysis) nukes to Ukraine after the russian invasion. the more sane interpretation is that they should help them against the party gone rogue on the treaty. otherwise all their other treaties will be assumed to be void by other nations. which is what is happening, and every state in those areas are already siding up with either russia or china, who they fell have more skin in the game to uphold their word later on. dependable terms are better than good terms on those things.
- mikeash 9y agoWhat do you mean, "by your logic"? The agreement clearly lays out the obligations of all the parties involved, and nothing says they have to help Ukraine defend itself against a non-nuclear attack. That's not logic, just reading.
- gcb0 9y agoif we agree to sell my house for you and another party, and the other party fails to come up with their 50%, then you can't expect to live in the house. and that's exactly what US and UK just did. either they help uphold the sovereignty over russia actions, or return the nukes. it's also basic reading. your flawed logic is thinking that two other parties can benefit fully from a contract where one of the parties failed to uphold the agreements.
- mikeash 9y ago"Return the nukes"? Like, somehow convince Russia to give them back?
- gcb0 9y agoexactly. since that outcome B (well actually the other parties returning the nukes), is batshit insane and completely crazy to even think about. that's why everyone assumed the other option was implied (the protection against the rogue Party). option C, not doing anything, is equivalent to stealing.
- mikeash 9y agoSo wait, if I agree not to invade you, and then later on you get invaded by someone else and I do nothing, that's equivalent to stealing? What did I steal?