[adamlj]

This could turn ugly really fast. If Russia attacks Ukraine the US and Britain would have to protect the borders of Ukraine, according to a treaty signed in 1994 [0].

If the US don't follow the treaty I guess we will know how much these treatys really are worth.

[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-Briti...

[smsm42]

They won't. What you expect, US going to war with a nuclear power over some territory in some third-rate country? The maximum you can expect is a couple of Obama speeches and Kerry promising an unbelievably small diplomatic effort to solve it.

So yes, all those treaties are worth something only when everybody wants to follow them, and they stop being worth paper on which they are printed as soon as one of the participants decides to break them. That's how it always worked.

[foobarqux]

It's not just "some territory": Russian natural gas --- one of the principle sources of Russian influence in Europe --- goes through Ukrainian pipelines.

[vonmoltke]

And nothing in the Budapest Memorandum requires or even permits a signatory to defend Ukraine against another signatory or anyone else. Obviously the Ukrainian government would ask for help in such a case, but there is no current treaty obligation to provide it.

Complicating this is that Russia claims Yanukovich is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine and that their actions thus far have his blessing, meaning their troops are not attacking Ukraine but supporting it against an armed insurrection. Nobody outside Russia's circle of friends believes that, of course, but its the fig leaf they are using.

[voidlogic]

Thats not was a prominent British diplomat says:

Sir Anthony Brenton (UK Ambassador to Russia 04-08): "If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia."

[ZanyProgrammer]

Key emphasis on and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding. That's a rather big if. But realistically, no one is going to care, because the west still isn't going to war with Russia over this. Edit: Technically, if it wasn't approved by the US Senate, then its legally just scrap paper.

[vonmoltke]

Actually, that is a good point I was forgetting. This is not a treaty. This is a "gentleman's agreement" between three nation states.

[vonmoltke]

All sides have been saying a lot of shit that is not exactly true over the past week. Here is the full text of the memorandum: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/2014_1-9/2014-08/.... Nothing in there provides an obligation to defend Ukraine from a third party.

[bananas]

Is there another source other than the daily mail i.e. one with an ounce of credibility?

[noir_lord]

Good on you for not trusting the Daily Mail, it's not even a rag at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security...

[bananas]

Depends what you're wiping with it ;)

Thanks for posting a more balanced and altogether less scary sounding article with references.

[vixen99]

Don't bother to back up you cliched attack on a popular tabloid newspaper. Much more fun to recycle the old epithets. What amuses me is that way hypercritical folk evidently read the Daily Mail (along with the other on a regular basis else how can they be so adamant concerning it's 'rag' characteristics? Seems to be a moveable feast on HN.

Independent reports say that the DM has the largest online readership in the world at around 44 million. Disputable of course; remarkable that so few of these people (if any) appear have made a buck or two by suing the paper for telling all the lies it's supposed to peddle.

[bananas]

Of course we read the Daily Mail occasionally. Well not the whole thing every day. That would be tantamount to bashing one's head on the ground until your intelligence quotient descends towards the dog and monkey end of the bell curve. I'm not suggesting any other rag is any better, just with a different agenda. News should be considered based on a number of sources.

With respect to circulation; 44 million affords more lawyers than you. The Mail has certainly attracted its fair share of libel cases over the years where n_lawyers > daily_mail_n_lawyers.

It's not fit for my children to do papier-mâché with for they might accidentally read some.

[hash9]

People dislike DM for many other reasons and will jump at the chance to discredit it. Think British Fox News.

[lambda]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securit...

[philwelch]

Um, no treaty is worth starting World War III over.

[pmorici]

I doubt Americans would stand for a US intervention in Ukraine after all the crap the country has been dragged through with Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jdimov]

I doubt anyone gives a shit about what Americans stand for.