5 ms·

Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?

by pkaye 5y ago

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
        The enforcement here would presumably look like sanctions, plus materially coming to Ukraine's defense to expel the Russian invasion. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that a counter-invasion of Russia itself would be a good idea.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  This is true of all contracts. Just because someone agrees to something in a contract doesn’t make it enforceable, and it’s even worse if the contract doesn’t specify what the consequences are for breaking it.

Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?

by pkaye 5y ago

Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?

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
      The enforcement here would presumably look like sanctions, plus materially coming to Ukraine's defense to expel the Russian invasion. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that a counter-invasion of Russia itself would be a good idea.
whiddershins 5y ago
This is true of all contracts. Just because someone agrees to something in a contract doesn’t make it enforceable, and it’s even worse if the contract doesn’t specify what the consequences are for breaking it.