>. What specific promises are you referring to?

The Budapest Memorandum. 1994 wasn't that long ago...

Still not very specific. Or correct, as far as I can see.

Here is the text of the memorandum: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...

Can you point us to the provision that you claim the U.S./Europe have violated? It is only about 1-2 pages long, so I don't think this is too much to ask.

Ah, but the thing is. They haven't violated the letter of the agreement. What they have violated is the spirit.

This could of course be blamed in Ukraine for not rejecting it at the time.

And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be? And what do you base it on? What should the U..S./Europe have done differently?

Meanwhile, I'll just note that it seems perverse, to say the least, to focus on hand wavy, alleged U.S./European violations of the "spirit" of the memorandum while Russia is literally dropping bombs on Kiev.

> And what do you suppose this "spirit" to be?

You give away your nukes, and we’ll protect you.

I don’t think Russia needs any extra condemnation, do you? But that was always kind of in the cards. I hold my own country (and the rest of the western world) to a higher standard.

That clearly was not either the letter of spirit of the Budapest Memorandum. An affirmative obligation to defend Ukraine from aggression is not the kind of obligation that the drafters of the agreement would have just left to the imagination. And you can tell that nobody seriously thinks that the memorandum created such an obligation because, if it did, Ukraine's possible accession to NATO would not have been such a big deal. It would already have had protections functionally equivalent to NATO Art. V (i.e., the mutual defense provisions).

If you have specific things that you think the west should be doing, like kicking Russia out of Swift, barring energy imports from Russia, etc. I'd be interested to hear it. I might even agree with you! But this talk about the US/Europe somehow violating the Budapest Memorandum just strikes me as misinformation that plays into the Russian narrative.

The US makes empty promises. Read the Budapest memorandum in which we made security guarantees so Ukraine would give up its nuclear arsenal[0]. Russian aggression would certainly be much more calculated if Ukraine still had that capability.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

If you look at what was actually agreed to, it seems like the US and EU are already doing more than obligated. I don't see any nuclear weapons being used, the west has respected their sovereignty, and is even economically sanctioning Russia and providing intelligence and equipment. Bringing this to the security council would do nothing anyways, as Russia is a part of it and any resolution would just get vetoed. The only party that's actually breached the agreement is Russia.

    Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[17]
    Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
    Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
    Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine 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".
    Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
    Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[13][18]

I think this is misinformation. Here are the provisions of the memorandum. There is nothing there about "security guarantees" that anyone has violated except Russia.

1. "[T]o respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." Only Russia seems to have violated that one.

2. To "reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." Same. The only one breaking this promise is Russia.

3. "[T]o refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." Haven't seen anyone claim that any party has violated this one.

4. "[T]o seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine." Again, I think only Russia has broken this promise.

5. "[N]ot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." So far so good.

6. To "consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments." OK.

Read the memorandum for yourself if you think I'm quoting selectively. It's short.: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...

> Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control.

What could they have done, throw the unarmed nukes at Russia? You also leave out the fact that Russia and the UK signed as well.

When you have nuclear weapons in your possession, obviously you will not be able to discover how to detonate them in an hour or a day.

Nevertheless when you have the resources of a state, it is very easy to disassemble them and discover, in a few weeks or months at most, how to replace the part that initiates detonation with one that you control.

It is Russia that has abdicated its responsibilities under the Budapest Memorandum. Give it a read, it takes half a minute.