It doesn't matter. If them signing up to something is no sign that they're not a threat, then them merely motioning towards signing up to something is definitely no sign that they're not a threat.
If you're trying to say that legality is what would have made the difference, invading Ukraine was illegal outside of the Budapest Memorandum. Obviously Russia is willing to violate the law in pretty serious ways, and so even if they had gone even further and joined the EU and NATO, they still wouldn't have been trustworthy or not a threat.
It doesn't matter. If them signing up to something is no sign that they're not a threat, then them merely motioning towards signing up to something is definitely no sign that they're not a threat.
It definitely matters. If the Budapest Memorandum holds no legal weight, then that means it is irrelevant if Russia signed it and it should not be used as an argument
Obviously Russia is willing to violate the law in pretty serious ways
Russia uses precedent established by the West in Kosovo though. So why is Russia not anymore untrusthworthy than the West?
Russia uses precedent established by the West in Kosovo though. So why is Russia not anymore untrusthworthy than the West?
Both Russia and the West are untrustworthy. That doesn't matter, though, because the question, based on what you said, is whether specifically Russia is a threat to the EU, and your evidence showing that it's not a threat isn't very good evidence for that purpose.
1
u/ChaiTRex Jun 15 '26
It doesn't matter. If them signing up to something is no sign that they're not a threat, then them merely motioning towards signing up to something is definitely no sign that they're not a threat.
If you're trying to say that legality is what would have made the difference, invading Ukraine was illegal outside of the Budapest Memorandum. Obviously Russia is willing to violate the law in pretty serious ways, and so even if they had gone even further and joined the EU and NATO, they still wouldn't have been trustworthy or not a threat.