The Budapest Memorandum committed the signatories not to themselves use force against Ukraine, but it was not a multi-way defensive alliance with all parties which obligated parties to fight against another party who attacked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
According to the three memoranda,[9] Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:
-
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[10]
-
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
-
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
-
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
-
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[5]: 169–171 [11][12]
-
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[13][14]
France and China were not signatories but apparently had similar agreements, which I have not read.
The UK and the US (and I assume China and France, if their agreements had approximately the same content) have fulfilled the Budapest Memorandum commitments — Russia broke her commitment.
EDIT: Well, okay, I’m not sure what China’s position has been on Ukraine at the Security Council, though de facto the issue is kind of academic for the moment. Russia holds a permanent UNSC seat, and thus has veto power on the UNSC, and regardless of what countries do there, if it’s on defending Ukraine against Russia, I’d bet that Russia will veto it. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN and so wasn’t present to veto US initiatives on behalf of South Korea, so the US was able to get through stuff to initiate UN authorization to use force on behalf of South Korea after North Korea invaded. But I think that it’s probably safe to say that Russia isn’t going to let that happen a second time. Also, that dealt with the use of nuclear weapons by an attacker, and that has not happened (and if you recall from earlier in the war, there was a discussion between the US and Russia on what would happen if Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. I don’t believe that the material was ever generally-released, but I did see a Polish official announcing that the response would be “conventional” (i.e. non-nuclear), and some discussion that centered around the US possibly authorizing airstrikes on Russian positions in Ukraine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_boycott_of_the_United_Nations
During the Soviet boycott, the Security Council adopted a resolution which allowed for the deployment of UN troops to the Korean war in defense of South Korea against the attacking communist North Korean forces (Resolution 83)
That being said, the US has taken a position that providing arms to a country in a conflict doesn’t violate neutrality obligations (which dates back at least to early WW2, where the US was providing arms to the Allies while simultaneously claiming neutrality). Historically, providing preferential access to arms this had not generally been in line with the obligations of neutrality.
The US has also taken the position that providing intelligence to such a party, as it is with Ukraine on Russia, doesn’t violate neutrality obligations. Going back to WW2 again, this was how some of the first shooting between Germany and the US started in World War II:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer
At 0840 that morning, Greer, carrying mail and passengers to Iceland, “was informed by a British plane of the presence of a submerged submarine about 10 miles [(16 km)] directly ahead. … Acting on the information from the British plane the Greer proceeded to search for the submarine and at 0920 she located the submarine directly ahead by her underwater sound equipment. The Greer proceeded then to trail the submarine and broadcast the submarine’s position. This action, taken by the Greer, was in accordance with her orders, that is, to give out information but not to attack.” The British plane continued in the vicinity of the submarine until 1032, but prior to her departure the plane dropped four depth charges in the vicinity of the submarine. The Greer maintained [its] contact until about 1248. During this period (three hours 28 minutes), the Greer manoeuvred so as to keep the submarine ahead. At 1240 the submarine changed course and closed the Greer. At 1245 an impulse bubble (indicating the discharge of a torpedo by the submarine) was sighted close aboard the Greer. At 1249 a torpedo track was sighted crossing the wake of the ship from starboard to port, distant about 100 yards [(100 m)] astern. At this time the Greer lost sound contact with the submarine. At 1300 the Greer started searching for the submarine and at 1512 … the Greer made underwater contact with a submarine. The Greer attacked immediately with depth charges.[6]
That is, the US position was that it could provide arms to the UK and could tell the British where German U-boats were without violating neutrality obligations, as long as it wasn’t actually fighting Germany (with the Greer firing back on a self-defense justification after having a torpedo fired at it). Germany wasn’t that enthusiastic about that interpretation at the time.
Under the UN Charter, countries are not supposed to engage in war unless (a) they’re defending themselves, (b) they’re defending a country with which they have a collective security agreement (a military alliance, think NATO or something like that), or (c) the UNSC has given authorization. That being said, there has been somewhat creative interpretation of (c), as with the US arguing that U.N. Resolution 1441 qualified and constituted such an authorization to intervene in Iraq in 2003, which is certainly not a universally-accepted take.
Something interesting to point out is that Russia was not originally granted a permanent UN seat. That seat was granted to the USSR. The USSR was dissolved in 1991 and the Russian Federation basically just announced that they would take the permanent seat granted to the USSR. Most countries in the UN accepted it without issue, but there was something important about this announcement that people may not know.
The Russian Federation being granted the former USSR’s permanent seat was conditional: the Russian Federation was required and expected to uphold the responsibilites that the USSR had, as well as the USSRs treaties and agreements. Failure to uphold those commitments would mean the Russian Federation was in breach of their agreement with the UN and should lose the seat formerly granted to the USSR.
The USSR, interestingly enough, had signed many treaties recognizing the borders of its successor states before it was dissolved, one of which being Georgia. Thus the actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008 violated one of these USSR agreements they are required to uphold. This was a direct violation and one that is technically grounds for removal of the UN, at least removal from a permanent seat.
However, its not that easy. The UN doesn’t actually have a protocol for removing a permanent seat member. It does, however, have a protocol for removing a member that repeatedly violates the UN charter, which does not specify that it does not apply to permanent members. This is a little more broad, and can extend to include the Russian Federation’s consistent abuse of its veto ability to shield itself and its allies from accountability, and its current actions in Ukraine that violate the Budapest Memorandum.
I mean, yeah, but in practice, the UN is structured the way it is, with the UNSC veto, to avoid creating World War III. That is, it’s aimed at avoiding great power conflict.
Taiwan was functionally removed and replaced by China, but that was really a recognition that Taiwan didn’t really de facto control China, which was who the seat belonged to.
Could Russia one day roll up to the UNSC and discover someone else sitting in their seat? Yeah, theoretically, but in practice, I don’t think that there’s a realistic chance that Russia would be removed from the UNSC seat as long as it’s running around with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, absent some kind of hard counter showing up that renders that arsenal useless.
The Russian Federation being granted the former USSR’s permanent seat was conditional: the Russian Federation was required and expected to uphold the responsibilites that the USSR had, as well as the USSRs treaties and agreements. Failure to uphold those commitments would mean the Russian Federation was in breach of their agreement with the UN and should lose the seat formerly granted to the USSR.
Sure. But the mechanism by which the UN functions is such that the Security Council has extensive veto power over most actual policy set by the UN. Consequently, any effort to challenge Russia on its failed obligations or to penalize or remove them would be subject to… Russian veto of the action from the Security Council.
That’s because the UN doesn’t exist to set policy against its primary member states. The UN exists to allow member states a neutral(ish) space to negotiate international policy amongst themselves and to organize against non-members and non-state-actors. Even if you could kick a $1T/year economy and largest sovereign landmass on the planet out of the body… who would benefit? Its not like removing Russia from the UN makes the country not-a-state. It’s not like the BRICS wouldn’t continue to coordinate amongst themselves independent of the UN. All you’ve done is cut the cord to the Little Red Phone that helps a future Russian President and a future American President from hashing it out before they launch nukes at one another.
The USSR, interestingly enough, had signed many treaties recognizing the borders of its successor states before it was dissolved, one of which being Georgia. Thus the actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008 violated one of these USSR agreements they are required to uphold. This was a direct violation and one that is technically grounds for removal of the UN, at least removal from a permanent seat.
You can single out the USSR on this technicality and hold Russia to it. But then you could single out the US for its extensive violation of the Geneva Convensions or its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords or any number of other historical treaties and associated promises.
You could single out the US for the Hague Invasion Act if nothing else. But we won’t, for the same reason nobody’s seriously interested in ousting Russia (or China or the UK or France for that matter).
This isn’t the G7 (formerly G8) where “We’re embargoing you, why are you even here?” would be the response to any Russian delegation. This is the body that exists to negotiate member states out of nuclear war. If anything, the Security Council should have significantly more members, given how nuclear weapons have proliferated over the last 70 years.
Maybe getting Pakistan and India on the panel could avoid the last great Pyrrhic Victory of human civilization.
-
The US promised to bring this to the UN security console and did. However Russia has veto rights on the UN security console and so this went nowhere.
Security council
Maybe English isn’t their first luggage.
No no, it’s a really nice narrow table in an entry hallway, typically with a drawer.
SecurityCube 360 Pro
sudo rm -rf ~/nukes/
That’s such a ridiculous thing to agree to, knowing that a country with a veto was the most likely aggressor. :(
However, at the time, the person making and in charge of keeping that promise was not a Russian asset.
And so did russia
it was probably prep FOR whats happening now. these games arent new.
Well that was dumb.
See also: Why someone needs to slip a nuke to the Palestinians.
USA: sends $170,000,000,000+ in aid…
The Rest of the World: “The USA isn’t doing enough!”
Where do you think Ukraine is getting it’s intelligence from?
In a time when a person working full-time can’t even afford groceries, we should be involved in exactly zero wars abroad.
I hate this country.
Lol wut. US “intelligence” is responsible for misleading people into war how many times?
And how many people died because of it? Hundreds of thousanda of lives or millions?
I think you overestimate that number, but that’s not the thing, the thing is slow walking aid just dragged everything out.
Some saybit was Donald’s gift to putin, so putin could “finish” quickly, but Biden dlow walked things too, like forbidding the use of american weapons on russians depending were they were.
A quick piwerful response was what we all wanted but didn’t get so here we are.
The deliberately slow is for upholding a testing ground for USA/Russia/China military industry developing their drone & AI warfare. Maybe the powers that be will use that to eliminate us rest when we’re not useful enough anymore. Skynet by fascists
They’re benefiting from it but I’d treat it as a conspiracy if someone said it was orchestred in some way.
Sorry, I guess we are being cheap, only contributing almost as much as everyone else combined.
It’s always “the USA is bad” until someone needs something, and suddenly doing as much as everyone else combined isn’t enough.
Did you just conveniently forgot humanitarian aid?
And the whole call USA in need, from a NATO standpoint, it has only been the other way around, and we were there for them. We (Europe) also let the hard power plus soft power to the USA after WW2. They have benefited enormously from that internationally, economically… We also have been buying USA weapon systems for enormous quantities.
The deal? If we need you, USA, you’ll help us against Russia (I don’t think there is another threat model).
First try: slow walking and half siding with Russia…
Well it seems like the party is over and good old europe is coming back.
Interesting times.
I’m not trying to be rude, but I’m guessing English is a second language for you.
We (Europe) also let the hard power plus soft power to the USA after WW2
So if I’m reading this right, in your opinion, war torn Europe was generous in “letting” the USA supply aid after WW2?
They have benefited enormously from that internationally, economically…
And yeah, that’s kind of the point, do you think any country in the world sends the GDP of a small country to another nation, purely out of the goodness of their heart?
half siding with Russia…
I sure hope you aren’t talking about me…
At least my reading skills are up to scratch…
