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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Most Americans Don't Want War With Russia. Where Are Progressives? [View all]Jedi Guy
(3,329 posts)40. "Security assurances" as presented in your post is a bit vague.
Your links are referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances from December 1994, I believe. Here's what assurances were provided:
1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. 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".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. 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".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
The security assurance was to "seek immediate Security Council action," which is a joke since Russia has a permanent seat and can unilaterally veto anything proposed by the Security Council. Russia was in breach of the agreement in 2014, and nothing happened. It's an agreement without an enforcement mechanism.
It clearly doesn't say that the US, NATO, or anyone else agreed to respond to a breach with military force or a declaration of war. I also note that you didn't bother to respond to any of my other points.
PS: I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the snarky "rich first page on a Google search" remark. I stated "as far as I'm aware" and I was at work at the time and didn't have time to put together a post with annotated sources. Furthermore, nothing in my reply to you was snarky. In any case, in future responses to your posts, I shall endeavor to set aside the time to do so.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Most former Warsaw Pact members are now members of NATO, so they are covered by treaty.
Klaralven
Jan 2022
#9
It's what I've been thinking as well, Chin music. At some point Uncle Sam's word ...
Hekate
Jan 2022
#26
Putin is attacking the EU the way he's attacking the US: with propaganda and cyber-weapons
Hekate
Jan 2022
#39
Didn't mean to be snarky about my search; just indicating there's a lot--and a lot I needed reminding
Hekate
Jan 2022
#41
Curious article, the author seems to be taking issue w/ progs taking stances that 80+% of DU agrees
Celerity
Jan 2022
#17