Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moniss

(6,460 posts)
10. I disagree that the parties were ever going to go to the mat for
Thu Dec 5, 2024, 09:04 AM
Dec 5

Ukraine. The only party they needed protection from was in fact Russia. The infrastructure and funding could have been addressed although certainly on a time scale that might present challenges. But the point remains that the parties to the agreement basically came to an agreement about a principle and little else other than Ukraine giving the weapons up. Note this excerpt from an article from DW dated 12/05/24:

" Admittedly, these guarantees were only a formality, since no sanctions mechanisms had been established at the time.

"Nowhere does it say that if a country violates this memorandum, that the others will attack militarily," said Gerhard Simon, Eastern Europe expert at the University of Cologne.

German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, telling DW, "The agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written."

Which to my point about the Budapest Agreement was like so many others that governments have made throughout history and the scrap pile of the ones that were never stood behind is a mountain compared to the barely visible stack of any they've upheld.

As bad as it sounds I believe Ukraine did not use the leverage they had and did not play hardball at all. They should have insisted on security measures spelled out with clear measures to be taken to meet responsibilities for security. They did not but should have told the Russians and the US/Western Nations that if they did not provide such an agreement that they would entertain bids for the nuclear stockpile from any and all interested parties. Instead they believed in promises and people pledging belief in a principle.

They are now utterly f**ked come late January and the nations like Poland should take heed that the promises of Article 5 and NATO may not be as ironclad as they think. It too does not specify a military response but only says NATO will take the actions "it deems necessary" in responding to a member being attacked. That in fact is not a mandate for an action but it is a means to allow taking no action and still claim NATO met it's obligation under Article 5.

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

None of this would have happened Evolve Dammit Dec 5 #1
One of the worst blunders of the moniss Dec 5 #2
The worst blunders came afterwards Emrys Dec 5 #7
I disagree that the parties were ever going to go to the mat for moniss Dec 5 #10
Apart from anything else, Russia held the launch codes for the missiles Emrys Dec 6 #13
It's not about launching them as much as moniss Dec 6 #14
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting this, twice now Emrys Dec 6 #15
Your response sounds childish and hopelessly naive. moniss Dec 6 #17
The threat would have set up Ukraine for military intervention PDQ to prevent it spreading nuclear materials and weapons Emrys Dec 6 #18
You position would make any country a pushover in international negotiations.nt moniss Dec 6 #22
Your position would see nuclear materials and weapons in the hands of even bigger crooks and bastards - Emrys Dec 6 #26
It would be foolish to claim that countries that have bargained over moniss Dec 6 #28
What would really be foolish is to imagine that Ukraine's position was strong enough at the time to attempt such a ploy. Emrys Dec 6 #31
Only a poor negotiator could come away moniss Dec 6 #38
We may be a bout to see the theft of our assets, so I hope MadameButterfly Dec 6 #11
This may be the end of the non-proliferation treaty. Crunchy Frog Dec 5 #3
And 10 years ago... druidity33 Dec 5 #4
While the leaders signed the documents they crossed their fingers behind their backs. Jacson6 Dec 5 #5
Putin has vowed to annihilate Ukrainians and their country. sinkingfeeling Dec 5 #6
That's quite noble but if you mind if I ask Jspur Dec 6 #20
No, but he had an Ukrainian girlfriend we helped to leave after Putin invaded. sinkingfeeling Dec 6 #23
I wish Biden would push through NATO membership for Ukraine MadameButterfly Dec 6 #12
He can't DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 6 #34
Thanks to the Nunn-Lugar Act, and Ash Carter. The Budapest Memorandum meant that... FailureToCommunicate Dec 5 #8
It was a mistake. Passages Dec 5 #9
Misleading. WarGamer Dec 6 #16
SOVIET nukes ck4829 Dec 6 #24
yes WarGamer Dec 6 #25
They shouldn't have Meowmee Dec 6 #19
Turns out those were empty promises Bettie Dec 6 #21
Blunder or pay-off? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 6 #27
A nuclear armed nation has never been invaded. Never. paleotn Dec 6 #29
Well, Ukraine invaded a chunk of Russia earlier this year Emrys Dec 6 #32
You don't get my meaning. That sliver of land in the Kursk oblast isn't existential to the Russian regime's existence. paleotn Dec 6 #33
OK, let's not get into hairsplitting, but I was responding to "invaded". Emrys Dec 6 #36
You're splitting hairs. paleotn Dec 6 #37
I'll split another one, then: Emrys Dec 6 #39
Let's take this at face value. Newly independant Ukraine was promised security by the Russians and by us. MMBeilis Dec 6 #30
I remember saying at the time they would regret it JCMach1 Dec 6 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»30 yrs ago today: Ukraine...»Reply #10