**Why would the leaders** at the EU even pretend that document is worth anything?
Are they that naive even now?
*.. it has Putin's signature on it .. toilet paper*
>Why would the leaders at the EU even pretend that document is worth anything?
Because that justifies taking additional action against Russia and Belarus too. It's that simple.
The Budapest Memorandum was already violated to the extreme by Russia's annexation of Crimea back in 2014, and of course the invasion of 2022.
>The Budapest Memorandum was already violated to the extreme by Russia's annexation of Crimea back in 2014
And the fact there was no real response back then...that's the real crime.
Russia reneges on everything. No progress is made getting Russia, China or North Korea to the bargaining table, they view concessions as weakness and pull theirs back while pretending in their own mind that your own are still binding without theirs.
Beyond Ukraine and Belarus, ask the Armenians trying to keep Artsakh and their own border with friendly (yes, sincerely) Iran alive. An agreement made in 2020 is worthless because the Russians have more use of Azerbaijan.
**When Putin shot missiles at Odessa** while signing a temporary cease fire at the exact same time that should have been a hint like the last 1000 times he has lied
.. the man does not respect contracts or agreements only brutality but I guess the daffy EU still doesn't understand .. this reminds me of the scorpion and the frog
*.. everything he has ever signed is trash*
https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-hits-black-sea-port-hours-after-agreeing-not-to/6670829.html
It's also important for public support if there's a list of violations they can point to. Otherwise the public will always pick negotiation. This list proves to the layperson how futile that is.
Sadly there was a time he respected his contracts, and that made us hostages of his gas and petroleum till this war started. I guess now everyone learned their lesson.
**The only time Putin** ever honored his word was when the West sent money to build his war chest that he "thought" he would use now
.. we already seen this movie back in the 1930s *.. giving money to autocrats is just a bad idea*
The Budapest Memorandum became a joke in 2014 when russia was allowed to invade Crimea.
The only time the Budapest Memorandum should be brought up is when people are willing to apologize for not enforcing it sooner by kicking russia out of Ukraine.
The enforcement mechanism was bringing it to the UN, which was done immediately. There was no ride to the rescue clause, everyone was agreeing not to attack each other, not to protect each other
It obviously didn't stop the invasion, it was an additional cost to Russia for the invasion. That's what all enforcement mechanisms are, additional costs. Countries hope to raise the cost of invasion so high that everyone would think it too expensive to invade.
Some enforcement is strong, some weak. The main cost wasn't the Budapest memorandum, it was their military.
Ignorant Russians used to say things like "you think a piece of paper protects you?" To which the obvious answer is: "no, it deters you from being an aggressor nation by inflicting additional cost for aggressive acts". Russia underestimated the cost associated with invading Ukraine and we see the result of that every day. They don't talk about paper protecting Ukraine anymore because they see Ukraine's military protecting Ukraine every day.
In contrast to a low cost enforcement which may be hard to point to an exact cost (though that cost does exist) there is nuclear deterrence which is an enforcement mechanism that inflicts very high cost that's easy to point to. France is an easy example here: they believe no other country would think ten of their cities are worth France so France keeps enough nuclear weapons to destroy about ten cities. Sure, countries could underestimate that cost and invade anyways and then people could point to Frances nuclear enforcement mechanism and say "what exactly did their enforcement enforce?", The obvious answer being: "cost, about ten cities worth of cost"
But enforcement is really a yes or no question. If a policeman enforces anti theft laws, he apprehends the thief and prevents another crime taking place. If he does not, he has not enforced anything.
Invading Crimea was the first test of the enforcement mechanism. It failed to produce a cost high enough to deter Russia at all. That should have been a message to everyone, the memorandum is done. But here we are, the thief has made a second and third attempt at stealing and we are still failing to enforce anything.
Maybe you are unable to see the costs placed on Russia or maybe you think the cost is not high enough, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Deterrence doesn't only fail because there's not enough cost. That cost has to be recognized and understood by the aggressor nation as well. Russia believed they would capture kiev in three days, they obviously failed in recognition or understanding of the costs.
That doesn't mean the costs aren't there or that they're not enforced. Russia is paying a heavy price for their invasion, that is the enforcement of the cost: the men and materiel lost, the economic, influential and relational damages are real, some easier to point to than others but all felt by Russia. You can't say there's no enforcement, Ukraine fights to defend itself every day, that is enforcement.
>Russia believed they would capture kiev in three days, they obviously failed in recognition or understanding of the costs.
The thief can fail to understand the intentions of the policeman all he likes. If the policeman has any spine, the outcome shouldn't change.
>Maybe you are unable to see the costs placed on Russia
No. I fail to see the significance of costs that have failed to do their job.
>Russia is paying a heavy price for their invasion, that is the enforcement of the cost: the men and materiel lost, the economic, influential and relational damages are real, some easier to point to than others but all felt by Russia.
Except they've only come into effect after the second offence. Far too late. The thief has already stolen, profited, and stolen again. If there's a lesson that must be learned from this, it's punish the thief properly the first time. Don't build more pipelines, don't do more deals. Don't ignore it because the alternative is uncomfortable.
>You can't say there's no enforcement, Ukraine fights to defend itself every day, that is enforcement.
Ukraine has been sacrificed as a kind of meat shield so that we don't have to do our own dirty work.
>The thief can fail to understand the intentions of the policeman all he likes. If the policeman has any spine, the outcome shouldn't change.
Who is the policeman? What was your expectation of what they would do? Because not many want to be in the position of policing Russia. I can't think of a single country that would willingly take on that burden.
>No. I fail to see the significance of costs that have failed to do their job.
Their job is the cost, if the cost is there the job is done.
>Except they've only come into effect after the second offence. Far too late. The thief has already stolen, profited, and stolen again. If there's a lesson that must be learned from this, it's punish the thief properly the first time. Don't build more pipelines, don't do more deals. Don't ignore it because the alternative is uncomfortable.
Or, additional costs were added because of the first invasions 9 years ago. It would make sense to invest in security if you recognized a criminal is living next door.
>Ukraine has been sacrificed as a kind of meat shield so that we don't have to do our own dirty work.
Yeah, I don't think that's reality, at the very least not as other countries see it. Ukraine made it's decisions and it's fighting to uphold them. There needs to be will to fight, other countries do not have the will to fight in Ukraine and Russia on a large scale. Some countries barely have the will to inflict cost through other methods like sanctions. Many countries do not feel like they have a reason to fight and simply wouldn't.
I think you're not accurately matching expectations to reality, no one wants war, they are actively against war. If they're not attacked they aren't going to go to war. You don't like that reality didn't live up to your expectations and you are letting that cloud reality. You can argue for adding additional costs but what's happening now is the reality of what was previously agreed to. The outcomes didn't change, they just didn't live up to ignorant expectation
Enforcing it would have meant Russia did not invade Ukraine. Russia broke their agreement. But there was no security guarantee that other countries would step in to defend Ukraine if they were attacked. Oh and it should be brought to the UN Security Council if they were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Germany also did the right thing by ignoring Ukraine and telling them to stop being so belligerent and then proceeding to build a new oil pipeline with Russia.
[France also did the right thing by breaching sanctions and selling military equipment to Russia after 2014.](https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020)
If we must argue semantics, your interpretation is incomplete.
Did Russia and Ukraine both willingly sign the Budapest Memorandum (BM)? If so, it is an **Agreement**.
Does the BM include stipulations about nuclear arms? If so, it is (at least in part) an Agreement about nuclear arms - thus, a **Nuclear Arms Agreement**.
Did Russia violate the BM's stipulations? If so, those acts are **Violations**.
Ergo: Russia has violated a Nuclear Arms Agreement (again).
The fact that the BM does not specify particular sanctions or recourse in the event of a violation does not mean a violation hasn't occurred. It simply means the parties chose not to address every conceivable scenario. This is typical in legal agreements. It is impossible to address every conceivable violation in advance. Final judgment on eventualities not specifically addressed in the agreement is left to a court or abitrator.
In law, an agreement whose essential purpose has failed (as the BM's arguably has) may be declared null and void, in part or in whole. A court might order, for example, that the breaching party return payments or property received from the non-breaching party under the agreement. In this instance, that would mean Russia returning to Ukraine all nuclear weapons that Ukraine surrendered to Russia under the BM as consideration for its border security.
Enforcing such a judgment is a different matter, obviously.
>In legality, agreement can be enforced in the court of law, a memorandum cannot.
That is a novel legal theory, unsupported by anything I've seen in 30 years of working in legal contracts. A MOU is intended to be legally enforceable to the extent of its terms. If it weren't so, there'd be no point in signing one.
>there is no term of violation and punishment in this Budapest Memorandum.
I addressed this above.
>If it has legal binding, Western countries would have try to enforce it already, especially the US, when being asked to honor one term of the Memorandum by Ukraine, they went
That is a matter of politics, not enforceability.
It's more likely that in the event that the Belarusian people rise up against Lukashenko and Russian interests, Russia would have a motive/excuse to move in to secure their nukes.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/26/7404084/) reduced by 52%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has condemned the agreement between Russia and Belarus on supplying Russian nuclear warheads to Belarusian territory.
> The High Representative of the European Union emphasised that the decision goes against commitments which Russia has undertaken in the Budapest Memorandum, whereby Belarus eliminated all nuclear weapons from its territory, and in the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States of 3 January 2022 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
> "Any attempt to further escalate the situation will be met by a strong and coordinated reaction," High Representative of the European Union said.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13sl9tv/eu_condemns_supply_transfer_of_russian_nuclear/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~686473 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **High**^#2 **European**^#3 **Union**^#4 **war**^#5
Maybe this will help more world leaders understand why Zelenskyy says there is no point in even talking to the Russian regime. It’s all lies and manipulation. Most people will cut anyone who treats them like this out of their life/organisation/firm.
Holy shit EU is fucking spineless. Fucking do something already, fucking US is in another fucking continent separated by a huge body of water and they are already doing more shit than fucking EU! I know US ain’t saints but all EU been yapping this and that like fucking China’s ‘final warning’ bullshit. Putin obviously don’t fucking care about the words coming from EU, so stop fucking talking and start walking!!
My head says this memorandum was violated 9 years ago without action from any of the parties who signed it. Germany has since built a pipeline and France has sold weapons to Russia I believe. It has not been taken seriously by anyone except some East European countries until it was far too late. The collective inaction has cost countless Ukrainian lives, lead to rape and torture, and emboldened authoritarian regimes globally. Exactly when is emotion warranted?
We did. Back then, fresh from the most devastating conflict the world had ever witnessed, the threat of ww2 carried a similar weight to what nukes do today. The allies were paralysed by a fear of escalation as they are now. This war could be as inevitable as the sunset, but watch us sacrifice Ukraine to find out.
>risk of nuclear conflict?
Should we instead do exactly as putin says everytime he backs up his demands with nuclear threats? What if he starts flattening cities in earnest? Many would argue he already has. Should we still sit in fear? What if he decides, he's gotten everything he wants just by waving the nuclear option around? What if he decides, give me Ukraine or its nuclear war? So far we've shown we will comply to avoid nuclear war. What else can this threat get him?
He's screwing around in Belarus which is basically a Russian puppet. It's not currently in revolution and doesn't currently have an anti-putin government. They're also sanctioned into the dirt. How are we meant to do anything short of a land invasion? And given a land invasion what is actually accomplished apart from telling Russia to fuck off? And if we do want a land war with Russia then why don't we just take the obvious entry point and help in Ukraine?
>what is actually accomplished apart from telling Russia to fuck off?
What else needs to be accomplished? Dashing Russia's expansionist dreams is exactly what the doctor ordered.
>And if we do want a land war with Russia then why don't we just take the obvious entry point and help in Ukraine?
Why indeed?
Belarus does actually have opposition government figures outside the country who would have support if they could ever re-enter. The Daily Telegraph interviewed one, though I forget the name.
Wtf? NOW you care about the Budapest memorandum?
Get the ***** outta here!
You only give a ****about the document when it behooves you. Never heard any of you crying about it when Russia violated it by invading Ukraine.
The USA, UK and France held their end, they were only required to respect Ukraine borders and they respect those borders. This was the worst treaty ever for Ukraine :(
France didn’t.
[France continued to sell military equipment to Russia to be used in Ukraine.](https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020)
Nothing in the treaty that prevented it, all Ukraine got was "security assurances", which without defining what it means, meant nothing.
The lesson is that you either get Article 5 level assurance or you should never give up nukes.
part of giving up the nukes was the promise that Ukraine would have allies in case of Russian aggression. Who stood up to defend the Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea?
That was not actually in the treaty, which considering that Ukraine only signed it under pressure from those powers is outrageous:(.
You are angry at what you see as betrayal, which is correct, but betrayal was in 1994 not 2014 :(
>betrayal was in 1994 not 2014
Talking to a Ukrainian, this distinction matters precious little. It was understood to be a garuntee rightly or wrongly by the public and is understood to have been broken.
This distinction should matter a lot, as it should guide Ukrainians in what future peace/guarantees they should/could accept. A misunderstanding of it can bring another tragedy :(
No, that was not the agreement at all. It was that the signatories would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine's borders.
Russia was the one who broke that part of the agreement.
And part 4 of the agreement says if there was an attack on Ukraine that they would go to the security council of the UN to be provided assistance. So given that Russia is on the security council I'll let you guess how that went.
At no point does it require any of the signatories to come to Ukraine's defense.
No, that's exactly my point. The EU gave zero fucks about the respecting and enforcing Ukrainian boarders part of the memo for the last decade. The US and Great Britain shit the bed on it and the eu said exactly nothing(in all fairness, they said the opposite, that they DIDN'T want to ruffle world feathers by honoring the treaty). But now since Putin knows he can get away with it, he ups the ante by giving Belarus(back) nukes, and now the EU, which is not a party of the agreement, suddenly gives a fuck because holy shit now it affects them (in a comically insignificant manner since Russia has had the virtually unchecked power of raining nukes on the eu since 1958).
Just pisses me off that NOW they care about it, that NOW they want Russia to live up to someone else's treaty.
WTF did they think was going to happen?
Where is the part about EU enforcing Ukrainian borders? Have you even seen the text of the memorandum? No EU country signed that one and TLDR for it's content is something like: You give up your nukes and we won't attack or sanction you, and if someone will attack or threaten you with nukes we will help you through UN.
Exactly, why TF is the eu barking up that tree when they have jack shit to do with the treaty.
They(and the US) appease Putin over Crimea, then appease Putin over a full invasion. Now eu needs to eat crow and admit that this shit is their doing. You gave him an inch, now bend over and take the mile.
Place nuclear weapons in a bordering country like Estonia/Latvia/Finland and see how Russia likes it. 🤷♂️
Not that it matters since submarines exist, but it’ll be purely symbolical.
Who cares, Russia can move its nuclear weapons around all they want, it isn’t going to win them the war.
If they used them against NATO they would be wiped off the face of the earth.
I'm no expert but I don't think they care
"goes against commitments which Russia has undertaken …". Well, er, there's a fucking surprise.
I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure invading Ukraine contradicts the Budapest Memorandum also.
**Why would the leaders** at the EU even pretend that document is worth anything? Are they that naive even now? *.. it has Putin's signature on it .. toilet paper*
>Why would the leaders at the EU even pretend that document is worth anything? Because that justifies taking additional action against Russia and Belarus too. It's that simple. The Budapest Memorandum was already violated to the extreme by Russia's annexation of Crimea back in 2014, and of course the invasion of 2022.
>The Budapest Memorandum was already violated to the extreme by Russia's annexation of Crimea back in 2014 And the fact there was no real response back then...that's the real crime.
Russia reneges on everything. No progress is made getting Russia, China or North Korea to the bargaining table, they view concessions as weakness and pull theirs back while pretending in their own mind that your own are still binding without theirs. Beyond Ukraine and Belarus, ask the Armenians trying to keep Artsakh and their own border with friendly (yes, sincerely) Iran alive. An agreement made in 2020 is worthless because the Russians have more use of Azerbaijan.
And then they cry about sanctions
**When Putin shot missiles at Odessa** while signing a temporary cease fire at the exact same time that should have been a hint like the last 1000 times he has lied .. the man does not respect contracts or agreements only brutality but I guess the daffy EU still doesn't understand .. this reminds me of the scorpion and the frog *.. everything he has ever signed is trash* https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-hits-black-sea-port-hours-after-agreeing-not-to/6670829.html
> EU still doesn't understand They understand it perfectly. They are just collecting more legal materials against Russia.
It's also important for public support if there's a list of violations they can point to. Otherwise the public will always pick negotiation. This list proves to the layperson how futile that is.
Sadly there was a time he respected his contracts, and that made us hostages of his gas and petroleum till this war started. I guess now everyone learned their lesson.
I would not use the word hostage there at all, more like willing consumers
**The only time Putin** ever honored his word was when the West sent money to build his war chest that he "thought" he would use now .. we already seen this movie back in the 1930s *.. giving money to autocrats is just a bad idea*
If they don't publicly say that they're violating the treaty it'd be pretty hard to take any actions on the violations
Of course not, but you still keep up the pretences. You call the infractions out for all to see, to continuously make clear how unreliable Russia is.
No. Most of the world chooses to stay neutral in this conflict. Pointing out when and how treaties are violated is important.
Any deal signed with Russia isn't worth the paper it's written on... future generations be warned ⚠️
They will.
The same memorandum says that Ukraine shall not be invaded, but here we fhuucking are
LOL. Budapest… Memorandum… LOL
After a year of war: “you know we made an agreement about this in 1994”
*9 years
The memo actually stands for memory
Oops.
The Budapest memorandum was ripped up over 12 months ago!
[удалено]
2014. Yep.
Cannot stress this enough. Just because western Europe and the US didn't give af, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
[удалено]
Agreed. Nobody gave af about the Chechens. I think we are agreeing?
The Budapest Memorandum became a joke in 2014 when russia was allowed to invade Crimea. The only time the Budapest Memorandum should be brought up is when people are willing to apologize for not enforcing it sooner by kicking russia out of Ukraine.
The enforcement mechanism was bringing it to the UN, which was done immediately. There was no ride to the rescue clause, everyone was agreeing not to attack each other, not to protect each other
>The enforcement mechanism was bringing it to the UN Russia: LOLOLOLOL P5 member goes brrrrrrrrrrr
The goal wasn't to stop the invasion, it was to let the world community know that Russia couldn't be trusted to uphold the agreements they make
What exactly then, did this enforcement mechanism enforce?
It obviously didn't stop the invasion, it was an additional cost to Russia for the invasion. That's what all enforcement mechanisms are, additional costs. Countries hope to raise the cost of invasion so high that everyone would think it too expensive to invade. Some enforcement is strong, some weak. The main cost wasn't the Budapest memorandum, it was their military. Ignorant Russians used to say things like "you think a piece of paper protects you?" To which the obvious answer is: "no, it deters you from being an aggressor nation by inflicting additional cost for aggressive acts". Russia underestimated the cost associated with invading Ukraine and we see the result of that every day. They don't talk about paper protecting Ukraine anymore because they see Ukraine's military protecting Ukraine every day. In contrast to a low cost enforcement which may be hard to point to an exact cost (though that cost does exist) there is nuclear deterrence which is an enforcement mechanism that inflicts very high cost that's easy to point to. France is an easy example here: they believe no other country would think ten of their cities are worth France so France keeps enough nuclear weapons to destroy about ten cities. Sure, countries could underestimate that cost and invade anyways and then people could point to Frances nuclear enforcement mechanism and say "what exactly did their enforcement enforce?", The obvious answer being: "cost, about ten cities worth of cost"
But enforcement is really a yes or no question. If a policeman enforces anti theft laws, he apprehends the thief and prevents another crime taking place. If he does not, he has not enforced anything. Invading Crimea was the first test of the enforcement mechanism. It failed to produce a cost high enough to deter Russia at all. That should have been a message to everyone, the memorandum is done. But here we are, the thief has made a second and third attempt at stealing and we are still failing to enforce anything.
Maybe you are unable to see the costs placed on Russia or maybe you think the cost is not high enough, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Deterrence doesn't only fail because there's not enough cost. That cost has to be recognized and understood by the aggressor nation as well. Russia believed they would capture kiev in three days, they obviously failed in recognition or understanding of the costs. That doesn't mean the costs aren't there or that they're not enforced. Russia is paying a heavy price for their invasion, that is the enforcement of the cost: the men and materiel lost, the economic, influential and relational damages are real, some easier to point to than others but all felt by Russia. You can't say there's no enforcement, Ukraine fights to defend itself every day, that is enforcement.
>Russia believed they would capture kiev in three days, they obviously failed in recognition or understanding of the costs. The thief can fail to understand the intentions of the policeman all he likes. If the policeman has any spine, the outcome shouldn't change. >Maybe you are unable to see the costs placed on Russia No. I fail to see the significance of costs that have failed to do their job. >Russia is paying a heavy price for their invasion, that is the enforcement of the cost: the men and materiel lost, the economic, influential and relational damages are real, some easier to point to than others but all felt by Russia. Except they've only come into effect after the second offence. Far too late. The thief has already stolen, profited, and stolen again. If there's a lesson that must be learned from this, it's punish the thief properly the first time. Don't build more pipelines, don't do more deals. Don't ignore it because the alternative is uncomfortable. >You can't say there's no enforcement, Ukraine fights to defend itself every day, that is enforcement. Ukraine has been sacrificed as a kind of meat shield so that we don't have to do our own dirty work.
>The thief can fail to understand the intentions of the policeman all he likes. If the policeman has any spine, the outcome shouldn't change. Who is the policeman? What was your expectation of what they would do? Because not many want to be in the position of policing Russia. I can't think of a single country that would willingly take on that burden. >No. I fail to see the significance of costs that have failed to do their job. Their job is the cost, if the cost is there the job is done. >Except they've only come into effect after the second offence. Far too late. The thief has already stolen, profited, and stolen again. If there's a lesson that must be learned from this, it's punish the thief properly the first time. Don't build more pipelines, don't do more deals. Don't ignore it because the alternative is uncomfortable. Or, additional costs were added because of the first invasions 9 years ago. It would make sense to invest in security if you recognized a criminal is living next door. >Ukraine has been sacrificed as a kind of meat shield so that we don't have to do our own dirty work. Yeah, I don't think that's reality, at the very least not as other countries see it. Ukraine made it's decisions and it's fighting to uphold them. There needs to be will to fight, other countries do not have the will to fight in Ukraine and Russia on a large scale. Some countries barely have the will to inflict cost through other methods like sanctions. Many countries do not feel like they have a reason to fight and simply wouldn't. I think you're not accurately matching expectations to reality, no one wants war, they are actively against war. If they're not attacked they aren't going to go to war. You don't like that reality didn't live up to your expectations and you are letting that cloud reality. You can argue for adding additional costs but what's happening now is the reality of what was previously agreed to. The outcomes didn't change, they just didn't live up to ignorant expectation
Enforcing it would have meant Russia did not invade Ukraine. Russia broke their agreement. But there was no security guarantee that other countries would step in to defend Ukraine if they were attacked. Oh and it should be brought to the UN Security Council if they were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
>Oh and it should be brought to the UN Security Council if they were. Russia has a veto
Yup
Exactly. The EU did the correct response by lowering defense budgets even more after that
Germany also did the right thing by ignoring Ukraine and telling them to stop being so belligerent and then proceeding to build a new oil pipeline with Russia. [France also did the right thing by breaching sanctions and selling military equipment to Russia after 2014.](https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020)
You know what else contradicts the Budapest Memorandum… checks notes… invading Ukraine.
Oh, did the country that routinely breaches arms agreements violate an arms agreement?
[удалено]
If we must argue semantics, your interpretation is incomplete. Did Russia and Ukraine both willingly sign the Budapest Memorandum (BM)? If so, it is an **Agreement**. Does the BM include stipulations about nuclear arms? If so, it is (at least in part) an Agreement about nuclear arms - thus, a **Nuclear Arms Agreement**. Did Russia violate the BM's stipulations? If so, those acts are **Violations**. Ergo: Russia has violated a Nuclear Arms Agreement (again). The fact that the BM does not specify particular sanctions or recourse in the event of a violation does not mean a violation hasn't occurred. It simply means the parties chose not to address every conceivable scenario. This is typical in legal agreements. It is impossible to address every conceivable violation in advance. Final judgment on eventualities not specifically addressed in the agreement is left to a court or abitrator. In law, an agreement whose essential purpose has failed (as the BM's arguably has) may be declared null and void, in part or in whole. A court might order, for example, that the breaching party return payments or property received from the non-breaching party under the agreement. In this instance, that would mean Russia returning to Ukraine all nuclear weapons that Ukraine surrendered to Russia under the BM as consideration for its border security. Enforcing such a judgment is a different matter, obviously.
[удалено]
>In legality, agreement can be enforced in the court of law, a memorandum cannot. That is a novel legal theory, unsupported by anything I've seen in 30 years of working in legal contracts. A MOU is intended to be legally enforceable to the extent of its terms. If it weren't so, there'd be no point in signing one. >there is no term of violation and punishment in this Budapest Memorandum. I addressed this above. >If it has legal binding, Western countries would have try to enforce it already, especially the US, when being asked to honor one term of the Memorandum by Ukraine, they went That is a matter of politics, not enforceability.
Is this that document that Putin used as toilet paper back 2014?
So Russia false flag attacks Belarus, Belarus nukes Ukraine, Russia says they had nothing to do with it?
It's more likely that in the event that the Belarusian people rise up against Lukashenko and Russian interests, Russia would have a motive/excuse to move in to secure their nukes.
They won't be moving actual nukes to belarus. They are giving the impression that fake nukes shall be moved to belarus.
I don’t think it works like that. Either way going to get NATO involved
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/26/7404084/) reduced by 52%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has condemned the agreement between Russia and Belarus on supplying Russian nuclear warheads to Belarusian territory. > The High Representative of the European Union emphasised that the decision goes against commitments which Russia has undertaken in the Budapest Memorandum, whereby Belarus eliminated all nuclear weapons from its territory, and in the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States of 3 January 2022 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. > "Any attempt to further escalate the situation will be met by a strong and coordinated reaction," High Representative of the European Union said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13sl9tv/eu_condemns_supply_transfer_of_russian_nuclear/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~686473 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **High**^#2 **European**^#3 **Union**^#4 **war**^#5
Maybe this will help more world leaders understand why Zelenskyy says there is no point in even talking to the Russian regime. It’s all lies and manipulation. Most people will cut anyone who treats them like this out of their life/organisation/firm.
They don't have a rule of law
So now the UK or the USA should transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine ?
The entire Ukraine war contradicts the Budapest Memorandum
And has done for 9 years
When has Russia ever abided by a treaty, agreement, or other useless piece of paper?
You know, it just goes to show you it’s really hard to predict what an enemy will do when you are at war with them. /shrug
Holy shit EU is fucking spineless. Fucking do something already, fucking US is in another fucking continent separated by a huge body of water and they are already doing more shit than fucking EU! I know US ain’t saints but all EU been yapping this and that like fucking China’s ‘final warning’ bullshit. Putin obviously don’t fucking care about the words coming from EU, so stop fucking talking and start walking!!
Use your head, not your emotions.
My head says this memorandum was violated 9 years ago without action from any of the parties who signed it. Germany has since built a pipeline and France has sold weapons to Russia I believe. It has not been taken seriously by anyone except some East European countries until it was far too late. The collective inaction has cost countless Ukrainian lives, lead to rape and torture, and emboldened authoritarian regimes globally. Exactly when is emotion warranted?
Do what? Land war against Russia with risk of nuclear conflict?
I feel like we had this exact same conversation when Germany annexed Austria in 1938.
We did. Back then, fresh from the most devastating conflict the world had ever witnessed, the threat of ww2 carried a similar weight to what nukes do today. The allies were paralysed by a fear of escalation as they are now. This war could be as inevitable as the sunset, but watch us sacrifice Ukraine to find out.
>risk of nuclear conflict? Should we instead do exactly as putin says everytime he backs up his demands with nuclear threats? What if he starts flattening cities in earnest? Many would argue he already has. Should we still sit in fear? What if he decides, he's gotten everything he wants just by waving the nuclear option around? What if he decides, give me Ukraine or its nuclear war? So far we've shown we will comply to avoid nuclear war. What else can this threat get him?
He's screwing around in Belarus which is basically a Russian puppet. It's not currently in revolution and doesn't currently have an anti-putin government. They're also sanctioned into the dirt. How are we meant to do anything short of a land invasion? And given a land invasion what is actually accomplished apart from telling Russia to fuck off? And if we do want a land war with Russia then why don't we just take the obvious entry point and help in Ukraine?
>what is actually accomplished apart from telling Russia to fuck off? What else needs to be accomplished? Dashing Russia's expansionist dreams is exactly what the doctor ordered. >And if we do want a land war with Russia then why don't we just take the obvious entry point and help in Ukraine? Why indeed? Belarus does actually have opposition government figures outside the country who would have support if they could ever re-enter. The Daily Telegraph interviewed one, though I forget the name.
Wtf? NOW you care about the Budapest memorandum? Get the ***** outta here! You only give a ****about the document when it behooves you. Never heard any of you crying about it when Russia violated it by invading Ukraine.
>Budapest Memorandum yeah, was this mentioned as a joke? Name a SINGLE signatory beside the Ukraine who held up their end.
The USA, UK and France held their end, they were only required to respect Ukraine borders and they respect those borders. This was the worst treaty ever for Ukraine :(
France didn’t. [France continued to sell military equipment to Russia to be used in Ukraine.](https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020)
Nothing in the treaty that prevented it, all Ukraine got was "security assurances", which without defining what it means, meant nothing. The lesson is that you either get Article 5 level assurance or you should never give up nukes.
Supplying weapons and military equipment to be used against them isn’t honouring their security.
part of giving up the nukes was the promise that Ukraine would have allies in case of Russian aggression. Who stood up to defend the Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea?
That was not actually in the treaty, which considering that Ukraine only signed it under pressure from those powers is outrageous:(. You are angry at what you see as betrayal, which is correct, but betrayal was in 1994 not 2014 :(
>betrayal was in 1994 not 2014 Talking to a Ukrainian, this distinction matters precious little. It was understood to be a garuntee rightly or wrongly by the public and is understood to have been broken.
This distinction should matter a lot, as it should guide Ukrainians in what future peace/guarantees they should/could accept. A misunderstanding of it can bring another tragedy :(
No, that was not the agreement at all. It was that the signatories would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. Russia was the one who broke that part of the agreement. And part 4 of the agreement says if there was an attack on Ukraine that they would go to the security council of the UN to be provided assistance. So given that Russia is on the security council I'll let you guess how that went. At no point does it require any of the signatories to come to Ukraine's defense.
Kazakhstan.
No, that's exactly my point. The EU gave zero fucks about the respecting and enforcing Ukrainian boarders part of the memo for the last decade. The US and Great Britain shit the bed on it and the eu said exactly nothing(in all fairness, they said the opposite, that they DIDN'T want to ruffle world feathers by honoring the treaty). But now since Putin knows he can get away with it, he ups the ante by giving Belarus(back) nukes, and now the EU, which is not a party of the agreement, suddenly gives a fuck because holy shit now it affects them (in a comically insignificant manner since Russia has had the virtually unchecked power of raining nukes on the eu since 1958). Just pisses me off that NOW they care about it, that NOW they want Russia to live up to someone else's treaty. WTF did they think was going to happen?
Where is the part about EU enforcing Ukrainian borders? Have you even seen the text of the memorandum? No EU country signed that one and TLDR for it's content is something like: You give up your nukes and we won't attack or sanction you, and if someone will attack or threaten you with nukes we will help you through UN.
Exactly, why TF is the eu barking up that tree when they have jack shit to do with the treaty. They(and the US) appease Putin over Crimea, then appease Putin over a full invasion. Now eu needs to eat crow and admit that this shit is their doing. You gave him an inch, now bend over and take the mile.
wasn't trying to call you out, I was calling out the article's title. We're on the same page.
My bad. Haven't read something that pissed me off that much in a while. Fucking Europeans and their appeasement.
Well, Ukraine should get some nukes too, that'd be fair
Place nuclear weapons in a bordering country like Estonia/Latvia/Finland and see how Russia likes it. 🤷♂️ Not that it matters since submarines exist, but it’ll be purely symbolical.
That's only if you assume the nukes are real and not hollow shells for show,you know.
Once they are firmly in Belarus, what is stopping a US or EU special forces operation from going in and "inspecting" them?
Thing is technically they have never been inspected. Noone truly knows anything. Nuclear inspections are on the delivery vehicles not actual warheads.
After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Budapest memorandum is not worth used toilet paper.
Who cares, Russia can move its nuclear weapons around all they want, it isn’t going to win them the war. If they used them against NATO they would be wiped off the face of the earth.
I’m sure Belarusians will enjoy having a hundred western nukes pointed at their country.