It’s actually incredible how such a short statement can be so wrong in so many different ways:
Someone attack US or UK? UN send peacekeepers into Ukraine equipped with UK or US weaponry?
At least, UK have 100% control at how their long range precision weaponry used. Most likely, ATACAMS also programmed by US.
Its you words, not mine. I said,
Memorandum just didn't work, it was useless from start.
tiff.net
братскийнарод.jpg
Ukraine was invaded by Russia and has been defending against that invasion ever since, in accordance with the UN charter. The US and UK are supporting Ukraine’s right to self defense by supplying them with weapons, also in accordance with the UN charter. Those weapons now belong to Ukraine, not the US or the UK. So Ukraine is using their own weapons to defend themselves against the Russian invasion. It’s impossible to interpret that as the US and UK attacking Ukraine and I have no idea why you’re trying so hard to make it look that way.
Once again. Their weapons being used to kill Ukrainian citizens. IMO, its violation of what being signed by UK and US. Does it mean that UK and US doing something wrong? No. My point here is that only way to provide security to Ukraine was by violating what was signed. People who signed this crap are traitors that traded Ukrainian security for false sense of security and ,basically, limited UK and US capabilities to protect Ukraine integrity.
Once again, that's completely irrelevant, for three reasons:
The problem with that opinion is that it's clearly wrong.
That's an idiotic and perverse interpretation. The memorandum provides security assurances towards Ukraine, it does not prohibit anybody from coming to Ukraine's aid in the event of an armed aggression against them. In simple terms it says that "now that Ukraine are getting rid of their nuclear weapons, we promise in return to respect their independence and souvereignity and to not attack them." That's the purpose and intent of the memorandum and there's nothing in the text that explicitly nor implicitly limits the UK and the US from aiding Ukraine's right to defend itself.
What is Ukrainian state if not its citizens?
Its not. Ukraine doesn't produce it and doesn't use it freely. Ukraine is warehouse and logistic center for SCALPS and STORMSHADOWS, not someone who can use them.
Self-defense of who? No one attacked UK and US, once again. Memorandum doesn't state anything that Ukraine should do
Nothing limits from providing aid, not use UK and US made and operated weaponry against Ukrainian citizens.
A political entity, a sovereign nation and a territory.
It is.
Owner != producer.
Because some of the weapons are donated with certain conditions. It’s still Ukraine’s weapons and it’s still Ukraine who are using them.
Wait, I thought you just said that Ukraine is a citizen. How can a citizen be a warehouse and logistic center?
Of Ukraine. Have you been living under a rock for the past two and a half years?
Nobody claimed they have been, so I have no idea why you think it’s a good idea to bring that up.
Because the memorandum is about providing security assurances to Ukraine.
There is no such prohibition in the memorandum.
Citizens, basically
Cruise missiles without ability to choose where they would fly is dead weight, not weapon. Its not full ownership, if you cant use something for what it should do.
I said Ukraine is its citizens. I didnt say citizens couldn't own land directly or indirectly as public property. Ukraine without Crimea or Donetsk still Ukraine. Ukraine without its citizens wouldn't be a thing.
Selfdefence of The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not selfdefence of Ukraine. Memorandum didn't limit Ukraine in anyway, but US,RF and UK(kinda considering all of them members of UN SC with veto right).
To people of Ukraine. Citizens of Ukraine.
L.O.L
Russia without Kaliningrad, Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Ossetia and Abkhazia would still be Russia (literally the biggest country in the world) but you try telling Putin to give them all up.
Have they been used against Ukraine so far? I don't see a limitation in your quote about UK and US weapons being used for Ukraine, in defence of Ukraine.
Yeap
Why would I? If those who live in those places would like to, I dont see any reasons to stop them.
🤣
Thats most notable example of usage that cause civilian casualties within Ukrainians
Not like I justifying what RF did with what US or UK did after RF violated memorandum 9 years ago, I am not idiot. Whole thing was about harmful nature of Memorandum, not about someone doing good or bad by violating it. Its not my problem that eran0004 is stubborn enough to pray the chorus while being unable to read.
I like them being in NATO, feel waaaay safer that way. Last thing I want is our midget starting another Winter War and my neighborhood being bombed by missile from Finnish F18.
No. Ukraine != Ukrainians. An American police officer shooting at a Ukrainian tourist in Los Angeles is not a breach of the Budapest memorandum. The armed forces of Ukraine shooting American-made weapons at invading Russian forces is not a breach of the Budapest memorandum.
Why would you have to have full control of that to be considered the owner of it? The US may be imposing some limitations on how the weapons are used, but in the end it’s still Ukraine who are using them and it’s Ukraine who decided whether they will be used or not.
Great, then I’m sure it will be easier for you to recognise the fact that the treaty is about the country of Ukraine rather than the individual citizens of Ukraine.
No, it’s the self defence of Ukraine. The US and UK are aiding their self defence, in accordance with the UN charter.
No, they signed the memorandum because of their status as nuclear powers. To say “hey, it’s great that you want to get rid of your nuclear weapons. We realise that it makes you more vulnerable now, so in return we promise to not attack you.”
No, the country of Ukraine.
Because its self-defense
Nope. Because I talking about cruise missiles that cant be used by Ukrainians
It cant be used without US controlled targeting system. If US dont want, ATACAMS would not fly anywhere.
County without citizens isnt Ukraine. Ultimate role of Ukraine as state is defense its citizens rights. First and most important right is right to live.
It how it should work if being done properly. In reality it couldn't protect Ukraine from any state with veto right. Only use I can think of is Turkey attack on Crimea, which was almost impossible considering Crimea was naval base of RF.
Gosh, I dont see any reason to continue if you in denial this much.
Not in a way that is regulated by the UN charter. The reason why that police officer wouldn’t be in violation of the Budapest memorandum is because it’s about relations and actions between countries - not individuals or nationalities.
Then what are you talking about?
Relevance? It’s Ukraine who uses them to defend their country.
Sure, just like a car without tyres wouldn’t be a car. But that doesn’t mean that the tyre is a car. Just accept that the memorandum refers to Ukraine as a country and not to individual Ukrainian citizens.
Relevance?
Turkey is not a part of the Budapest memorandum.
Oh the irony.
