5 ms·

Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for the 3rd in the world arsenal of nucle

by nuccy 5y ago

Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for the 3rd in the world arsenal of nuclear weapons. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

rmk 5y ago
Interesting. I suppose a resolute response to the first violation by Russia might have helped.
adrr 5y ago
US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    It takes two things for an agreement like this to become worthless. The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently. The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it. Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the first to break the agreement. But the moment when these agreements become worthless, is when violations are not enforced, not when violations occur.
    - pkaye 5y ago
      Only Russia has not met its obligations of the Memorandum as listed in this section. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Content https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
      - margalabargala 5y ago
        Yes. And the US is not obligated to do anything about that, and they indeed are not doing anything about it. Thus such agreements have become worthless. Had the US said five days ago, "we will use our military to ensure the Budapest Memorandum is followed", and defended Ukraine when invaded, then in the future if a similar agreement was proposed the country would trust that it would be followed. They did not, and this means that no one will again enter into a similar agreement. I'm not claiming that a US military intervention would be the "correct" thing to do, merely that it would be necessary to preserve worldwide trust in treaties similar to the Budapest Memorandum.
        toyg 5y ago
        I'm not sure how much trust we'd still have in paper agreements after a nuclear winter or two...
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        It's not obvious to me that it's a recipe for peace and stability if every international agreement comes with an implicit "also we promise to invade everyone who doesn't comply" rider.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        You either have to trust that the participants will follow the agreement, or you have to trust that the other participants will enforce the agreement. If you have neither of those things, you have no agreement at all.
        margalabargala 5y ago
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents." It is a bit unfair to blame it on US, France and UK only, when russia signed the document, too - and was the actual party to violate it by attacking ukraine already in 2014. (russia's position is, that since Maidan 2014 the state with which they signed the treaty, does not exist anymore)
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    It is not just "a bit unfair", it is part of the nonsensical "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'" attitude which has gained so much popularity in the last decades. May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has been here a long time) to stop (self-) flagellating and to start looking at the things which that much maligned "west" actually does right, things which are - gasp - worth defending?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has been here a long time)" Well, I agree that this attitude "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'" is quite stupid. But the US is the hegemonial power and wants to maintain it. So it is natural that those in charge get the flak for things going wrong. And about things going wrong: how about the whole war on terror? Was it really a surprise, that you can't make the world a safer place, if you attack countries(against international law in one case), to punish some individuals? And Guantanamo is still open. So yes, the west has some democratic and liberal values worth defending against dictators and co. And some only understand the language of raw power. But maybe that would still work better, if we would stick to those principles all the time and not just, when it suits us.
      - Ourgon 5y ago
        I think we all know that "the west" - whether that be the US, western Europe, Israel, Australia or any other country which is normally included under that moniker is not perfect, especially after having those things you just mentioned dragged up on each and every occasion. Stop doing that, you do not have to constantly mention all "our" sins to make a point, we know. Putin just invaded a sovereign country, maybe you should mention some of the bad things he and the oligarchs who fund him have been up to? Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, polonium poisonings, journalists falling from windows or being killed on the streets, Alexei Navalny, there's plenty to choose from. Come on, let's hear it. We know "we" are sinners, enough of that - save it for a sunday sermon or something like that. We Know. Now, it is time to pick up "The Western Burden" - or accept the defeat of what we call liberal democracy. And yes, we know that there are many flaws in what we call liberal democracy. It is still preferable, warts and all, over the alternatives, whether that be some harebrained plan from the World Economic Forum, a kleptocratic oligarchy like Putin's Russia, a dystopic surveillance state like Xi's China or some combination of these. So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or, finally, some clear words on where we stand?
- pishpash 5y ago
  That was always the end game. Non-proliferation is dead. The name of the game these days is faster/unstoppable delivery for yourself and detecting/stopping the other guy. This is why Russia is triggered by NATO ringing it to potentially neutralize credible MAD while NATO can claim it's a defensive-only alliance.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  While way off topic, why would Saudi Arabia need nuclear weapons? My understanding is they are pretty closely allied with Pakistan, a known nuclear state.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Pakistan is 5 minutes away from a regime change, and abandoning the Western camp. Saudi has just called back a huge multi-billion dollar loan to Pakistan.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      Does this explain the IK visit to Russia? I thought Saudi called it back months ago.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        If you have not noticed, Russia been courting Pakistan for the last few years. Why? Modi is leaving Russian military hardware for US one, or so he threatens. Second, Pakistan is broke, and is on the road to becoming Argentina 2.0. Even with the sorry state of Russian exchequer, Russia can probably spare a billion or so. If it is not just Modi, then Putin wants a platz-de-arme in the region.
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    If Iran builds a nuclear weapon, it may threaten Saudi Arabia. They already have hostile relations today. It would get worse if Iran had nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia is home to the most important Islamic religious sites in the world: Mecca and Medina. Yes, I have also ready "security analysis" that claims Pakistan will defend Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons if there are serious threats to Mecca and Medina.
  - adrr 5y ago
    Saudi funded the Pakistan nuclear program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#:~:text=Pakistan%20has%20denied%20aiding%20Saudi,gain%20nuclear%20weapons%20at%20will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi....
garaetjjte 5y ago
Nobody "guaranteed" anything, they just agreed to respect Ukraine borders. Which Russia didn't, but other parties don't have any other obligation than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when there is threat of using nuclear weapons.
polski-g 5y ago
They did no such thing: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899/why-dont-signatories-of-budapest-memorandum-on-security-assurances-except-russ https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899/why-dont-s... The leaders just signed a piece of paper which was never ratified by legislators and doesn't even guarantee what you claim: > The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. It was just a promise to have a meeting at the UNSC if something happens.
chrisjc 5y ago
Hasn't this been discussed numerous times on HN? The premise of this agreement was that US, UK, etc... wouldn't invade the Ukraine to seize/secure the nuclear assets, if they gave them up willingly? Not that the US, UK, etc... would protect the Ukraine if they gave it up?

by nuccy 5y ago

rmk 5y ago

Interesting. I suppose a resolute response to the first violation by Russia might have helped.

adrr 5y ago

US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.

pkaye 5y ago
Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?
- margalabargala 5y ago
  It takes two things for an agreement like this to become worthless. The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently. The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it. Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the first to break the agreement. But the moment when these agreements become worthless, is when violations are not enforced, not when violations occur.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    Only Russia has not met its obligations of the Memorandum as listed in this section. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Content https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      Yes. And the US is not obligated to do anything about that, and they indeed are not doing anything about it. Thus such agreements have become worthless. Had the US said five days ago, "we will use our military to ensure the Budapest Memorandum is followed", and defended Ukraine when invaded, then in the future if a similar agreement was proposed the country would trust that it would be followed. They did not, and this means that no one will again enter into a similar agreement. I'm not claiming that a US military intervention would be the "correct" thing to do, merely that it would be necessary to preserve worldwide trust in treaties similar to the Budapest Memorandum.
      - toyg 5y ago
        I'm not sure how much trust we'd still have in paper agreements after a nuclear winter or two...
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        It's not obvious to me that it's a recipe for peace and stability if every international agreement comes with an implicit "also we promise to invade everyone who doesn't comply" rider.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        You either have to trust that the participants will follow the agreement, or you have to trust that the other participants will enforce the agreement. If you have neither of those things, you have no agreement at all.
        margalabargala 5y ago
hutzlibu 5y ago
"The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents." It is a bit unfair to blame it on US, France and UK only, when russia signed the document, too - and was the actual party to violate it by attacking ukraine already in 2014. (russia's position is, that since Maidan 2014 the state with which they signed the treaty, does not exist anymore)
- Ourgon 5y ago
  It is not just "a bit unfair", it is part of the nonsensical "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'" attitude which has gained so much popularity in the last decades. May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has been here a long time) to stop (self-) flagellating and to start looking at the things which that much maligned "west" actually does right, things which are - gasp - worth defending?
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has been here a long time)" Well, I agree that this attitude "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'" is quite stupid. But the US is the hegemonial power and wants to maintain it. So it is natural that those in charge get the flak for things going wrong. And about things going wrong: how about the whole war on terror? Was it really a surprise, that you can't make the world a safer place, if you attack countries(against international law in one case), to punish some individuals? And Guantanamo is still open. So yes, the west has some democratic and liberal values worth defending against dictators and co. And some only understand the language of raw power. But maybe that would still work better, if we would stick to those principles all the time and not just, when it suits us.
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      I think we all know that "the west" - whether that be the US, western Europe, Israel, Australia or any other country which is normally included under that moniker is not perfect, especially after having those things you just mentioned dragged up on each and every occasion. Stop doing that, you do not have to constantly mention all "our" sins to make a point, we know. Putin just invaded a sovereign country, maybe you should mention some of the bad things he and the oligarchs who fund him have been up to? Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, polonium poisonings, journalists falling from windows or being killed on the streets, Alexei Navalny, there's plenty to choose from. Come on, let's hear it. We know "we" are sinners, enough of that - save it for a sunday sermon or something like that. We Know. Now, it is time to pick up "The Western Burden" - or accept the defeat of what we call liberal democracy. And yes, we know that there are many flaws in what we call liberal democracy. It is still preferable, warts and all, over the alternatives, whether that be some harebrained plan from the World Economic Forum, a kleptocratic oligarchy like Putin's Russia, a dystopic surveillance state like Xi's China or some combination of these. So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or, finally, some clear words on where we stand?
pishpash 5y ago
That was always the end game. Non-proliferation is dead. The name of the game these days is faster/unstoppable delivery for yourself and detecting/stopping the other guy. This is why Russia is triggered by NATO ringing it to potentially neutralize credible MAD while NATO can claim it's a defensive-only alliance.
sidewndr46 5y ago
While way off topic, why would Saudi Arabia need nuclear weapons? My understanding is they are pretty closely allied with Pakistan, a known nuclear state.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Pakistan is 5 minutes away from a regime change, and abandoning the Western camp. Saudi has just called back a huge multi-billion dollar loan to Pakistan.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    Does this explain the IK visit to Russia? I thought Saudi called it back months ago.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      If you have not noticed, Russia been courting Pakistan for the last few years. Why? Modi is leaving Russian military hardware for US one, or so he threatens. Second, Pakistan is broke, and is on the road to becoming Argentina 2.0. Even with the sorry state of Russian exchequer, Russia can probably spare a billion or so. If it is not just Modi, then Putin wants a platz-de-arme in the region.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  If Iran builds a nuclear weapon, it may threaten Saudi Arabia. They already have hostile relations today. It would get worse if Iran had nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia is home to the most important Islamic religious sites in the world: Mecca and Medina. Yes, I have also ready "security analysis" that claims Pakistan will defend Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons if there are serious threats to Mecca and Medina.
- adrr 5y ago
  Saudi funded the Pakistan nuclear program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#:~:text=Pakistan%20has%20denied%20aiding%20Saudi,gain%20nuclear%20weapons%20at%20will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi....

garaetjjte 5y ago

Nobody "guaranteed" anything, they just agreed to respect Ukraine borders. Which Russia didn't, but other parties don't have any other obligation than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when there is threat of using nuclear weapons.

polski-g 5y ago

They did no such thing: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899/why-dont-signatories-of-budapest-memorandum-on-security-assurances-except-russ https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899/why-dont-s... The leaders just signed a piece of paper which was never ratified by legislators and doesn't even guarantee what you claim: > The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. It was just a promise to have a meeting at the UNSC if something happens.

chrisjc 5y ago

Hasn't this been discussed numerous times on HN? The premise of this agreement was that US, UK, etc... wouldn't invade the Ukraine to seize/secure the nuclear assets, if they gave them up willingly? Not that the US, UK, etc... would protect the Ukraine if they gave it up?