5 ms·

>. What specific promises are you referring to? The Budapest Memorandum. 1994 wasn't that long ago...

pdabbadabba 5y ago
Still not very specific. Or correct, as far as I can see. Here is the text of the memorandum: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484 https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or... Can you point us to the provision that you claim the U.S./Europe have violated? It is only about 1-2 pages long, so I don't think this is too much to ask.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Ah, but the thing is. They haven't violated the letter of the agreement. What they have violated is the spirit. This could of course be blamed in Ukraine for not rejecting it at the time.
  - pdabbadabba 5y ago
    And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be? And what do you base it on? What should the U..S./Europe have done differently? Meanwhile, I'll just note that it seems perverse, to say the least, to focus on hand wavy, alleged U.S./European violations of the "spirit" of the memorandum while Russia is literally dropping bombs on Kiev.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      > And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be? You give away your nukes, and we’ll protect you. I don’t think Russia needs any extra condemnation, do you? But that was always kind of in the cards. I hold my own country (and the rest of the western world) to a higher standard.
      - pdabbadabba 5y ago
        That clearly was not either the letter of spirit of the Budapest Memorandum. An affirmative obligation to defend Ukraine from aggression is not the kind of obligation that the drafters of the agreement would have just left to the imagination. And you can tell that nobody seriously thinks that the memorandum created such an obligation because, if it did, Ukraine's possible accession to NATO would not have been such a big deal. It would already have had protections functionally equivalent to NATO Art. V (i.e., the mutual defense provisions). If you have specific things that you think the west should be doing, like kicking Russia out of Swift, barring energy imports from Russia, etc. I'd be interested to hear it. I might even agree with you! But this talk about the US/Europe somehow violating the Budapest Memorandum just strikes me as misinformation that plays into the Russian narrative.

Still not very specific. Or correct, as far as I can see. Here is the text of the memorandum: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484 https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or... Can you point us to the provision that you claim the U.S./Europe have violated? It is only about 1-2 pages long, so I don't think this is too much to ask.

Aeolun 5y ago
Ah, but the thing is. They haven't violated the letter of the agreement. What they have violated is the spirit. This could of course be blamed in Ukraine for not rejecting it at the time.
- pdabbadabba 5y ago
  And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be? And what do you base it on? What should the U..S./Europe have done differently? Meanwhile, I'll just note that it seems perverse, to say the least, to focus on hand wavy, alleged U.S./European violations of the "spirit" of the memorandum while Russia is literally dropping bombs on Kiev.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be? You give away your nukes, and we’ll protect you. I don’t think Russia needs any extra condemnation, do you? But that was always kind of in the cards. I hold my own country (and the rest of the western world) to a higher standard.
    - pdabbadabba 5y ago
      That clearly was not either the letter of spirit of the Budapest Memorandum. An affirmative obligation to defend Ukraine from aggression is not the kind of obligation that the drafters of the agreement would have just left to the imagination. And you can tell that nobody seriously thinks that the memorandum created such an obligation because, if it did, Ukraine's possible accession to NATO would not have been such a big deal. It would already have had protections functionally equivalent to NATO Art. V (i.e., the mutual defense provisions). If you have specific things that you think the west should be doing, like kicking Russia out of Swift, barring energy imports from Russia, etc. I'd be interested to hear it. I might even agree with you! But this talk about the US/Europe somehow violating the Budapest Memorandum just strikes me as misinformation that plays into the Russian narrative.