Submitted 4 days ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to globalnews@lemmy.zip
https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/04/19/ukraine-trusted-the-west-now-everyone-wants-nukes/
In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. Russia invaded anyway. Now, more nations ask: Why disarm if those promises mean nothing?
Archived version: archive.is/…/ukraine-trusted-the-west-now-everyon…
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
To be America’s enemy is dangerous, but to be it’s ally is fatal
Don’t forget to punch a Russia-loving conservative.
Punching is no longer enough, they are too stupid to understand how they are destroying society by voting conservative and following religions that promote fascists into power. You either need to destroy their lives and/or destroy their families.
Now, more nations ask: Why disarm if those promises mean nothing?
Who? What nuclear bomb equipped countries are even floating the idea of giving them up lmao?
This is why North Korea can never give up their nukes.
Man, it’s fucking bullshit I have to see the apocalypse in my lifetime. No part of me thinks I make it to old age without this planet becoming a radioactive hellscape.
You could avoid it by taking action…
PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 days ago
God damn. So, the Budapest Memorandum is short enough to read in a couple of minutes: treaties.un.org/doc/…/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
It’s incredibly badly written. The most relevant part:
What is “assistance”? Selling weapons? Giving weapons? Sending troops? Using nuclear weapons in retaliation? I definitely don’t read that as a security guarantee. But, it seems cunningly vaguely crafted in a way that could make it sound like one.
Also, do they even have to actually give “assistance”? Or just seek assistance from the Security Council and then they’re allowed to give up if they don’t find it?
Does it even get triggered by “victim of any act of aggression,” or does that clause about “in which nuclear weapons are used” also apply to that first contingency?
It’s basically so poorly worded that it could mean anything. Presumably, this was either a deliberate goal, or else the result of the various parties being so unwilling to come to an agreement that they just wanted to get something signed and all move on regardless of whether it meant anything, or both.
Of course, if we’re assigning any blame to Western powers for not stopping the Russian Federation, we should also be noting that the Russian Federation agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the existing borders, and not to attack Ukraine under any circumstances. But we always knew modern Russia is so full of shit their eyes are brown, so no surprise there.
ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
It also kind of says they only get assistance in case nuclear weapons are used. Which in this conflict actually hasn’t happened, and I am not saying that to justify the war effort here, I am just surprised this is so defined and the Ukrainian government felt that was enough.
woop_woop@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Grammatically, it doesn’t say that. An act of aggression or a nuclear blah blah is vague enough that you can read it with or without a comma
freebee@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
“object of a threat in which nuclear weapons are used”. Just the threat of using nuclear is enough for assistance… The vague part is mainly what “assistance” might be. That what is “assistance” part is very vague in NATO too.
woop_woop@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That’s not badly written. Thats intentionally vague so one can justify a lot of different responses. That’s how these things work