"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (17 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I have a query on the non proliferation / sovereignty guarantee signed by Ukraine and Russia. Were there any other signatories to this
as to sovereignty as Russia has clearly broken the terms (reasons why were clearly pointed out in this thread but I don't recall which post/s).

If there are other signatories does that mean they have an internationally legal right to intervene or even an obligation to do so ?
 
I have a query on the non proliferation / sovereignty guarantee signed by Ukraine and Russia. Were there any other signatories to this
as to sovereignty as Russia has clearly broken the terms (reasons why were clearly pointed out in this thread but I don't recall which post/s).

If there are other signatories does that mean they have an internationally legal right to intervene or even an obligation to do so ?

The Budapest Accords were signed by UK, US, Russia, France, China, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The Accords simply provide for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons and, in return, received signed assurances from the other nations that they would respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. There is no clause in the text calling on signatories to protect Ukraine if one of the other signatories breaks the Accord.
 
Pretty sure world military leaders have been watching this conflict closely, and have inside tracks to Intel that would show just how well Russian equipment is performing in combat.

Surely Vladolph Putler cannot believe that his yapping away at a conference, with these fantastic claims, takes precedence over hard Intel...

Vladolph…

6CCB56F7-83D0-419D-A083-AACEACBCE33E.gif
 
The Budapest Accords were signed by UK, US, Russia, France, China, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The Accords simply provide for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons and, in return, received signed assurances from the other nations that they would respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. There is no clause in the text calling on signatories to protect Ukraine if one of the other signatories breaks the Accord.
That's what I was wondering. Thank you.
 
Pretty sure world military leaders have been watching this conflict closely, and have inside tracks to Intel that would show just how well Russian equipment is performing in combat.

Surely Vladolph Putler cannot believe that his yapping away at a conference, with these fantastic claims, takes precedence over hard Intel...

He may well be talking to a domestic audience that is only allowed to see what he permits the media to air anyway. He may not be caring about foreign opinion at all, in my view.
 
He may well be talking to a domestic audience that is only allowed to see what he permits the media to air anyway. He may not be caring about foreign opinion at all, in my view.
His statements about his advanced Russian Military hardware, was at an international military technical forum.

I can't imagine the handful of "international" attendees were taking him seriously and were most likely there for the free drinks and salad bar.
 
The Budapest Accords were signed by UK…, in return, received signed assurances from the other nations that they would respect Ukrainian territorial integrity.
What threat could the UK be to Ukrainian territorial integrity? This isn't the 1850s. What Ukraine needed was assurances that others would not stand idly by whilst the nation was attacked.
 
I think the point is there were NO guarantors. Ukraine is attacked, dusts off the Budapest Accords and reads the small print that says, we the undersigned countries agree not to mess with your borders, but if anyone else does, including any of the other signatories, too bad for you.

Let's be careful of adopting the retrospectroscope here. The only collective defence security agreement in Europe is NATO. Having NATO members entering into additional security agreements is a de facto escalatory decision (from Russia's perspective).

In addition. Ukraine in 2008 was a very different country from Ukraine today. Democracy was only just starting to bud. The political leadership of Ukraine mostly leaned towards Russia.

Given these realities, expecting the US and UK to act as guarantors for Ukrainian territorial integrity simply is a non-starter.
 
Let's hope they're careful. Is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who cooperates with the occupiers in order to survive fair game?


Will we see scenes like in Paris 1945 in liberated Ukraine?


If the Ukrainian resistance and partisans aren't careful it's only a matter of time before innocent civilians are killed. The West's appetite for helping Ukraine is not without limits.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back