This assertion bears unmistakable appearance of a post hoc ergo propter hoc assertion.
That's not about the Budapest Memorandum.
In all the years of this War, I have not seen any report wherein Putin / Russia attributes Ukrainian aggression to the Budapest Memorandum.
To the contrary, reports of the time were unanimous in reporting Russian military troops massing on Ukraine's border, preparatory to Russia's invasion.
Reportedly the law against it was signed into law years ago.
Here is what Britanica says about the causes of the war in the Ukraine:
{...
Why did Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine in 2022?
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Vladimir Putin’s invasion followed years of tension between
Russia and
Ukraine as Ukraine moved toward closer ties with the West, which Putin viewed as a threat to Russia’s influence. Between October and November 2021, he amassed troops and military equipment along Russia’s border with Ukraine and made various demands that were rejected, including de facto veto power over
NATO expansion. On February 21, 2022, Putin recognized the independence of the separatist regions of
Donetsk and
Luhansk and ordered Russian troops into Ukrainian territory as “peacekeepers,” and on February 24 he launched a full-scale invasion that he called a “special military operation.”
Putin’s stated reasons for the invasion included the false claim that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas. Putin’s reasons were widely discredited internationally, and his invasion was instead seen as an attempt to reassert Russian influence over Ukraine and prevent its further integration with the
European Union and NATO.
...}
https://www.britannica.com/question/Why-did-Vladimir-Putin-invade-Ukraine-in-2022
While I disagree with Britannica about the murders of ethnic Russians by the Azov Battalion, I agree it was mainly about the Ukraine trying to join "Alliances Hostile to Russia", which was prohibited by the Budapest Memorandum.
If the Ukraine had joined NATO as they constantly tried to do, that would mean the US would put nukes on Russia's border that Russia could no longer respond to in time.
As for the oil embargo on Russia, if someone made a living doing that, then this would illegally destroy his liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Not to mention that blockage of civilian commerce was made a war crime by the 1906 Geneva Conventions, which Congress had ratified into US law.
What I am claiming is not just that congress has no authority to interfere with civilian commerce in any way, but that congress actually committed a war crime that should get them all imprisoned.
Of course Congress is not going to be imprisoned over this, but legally they should.
And it destroys the whole credibility of the entire US.
We are supposed to be republic founded on inherent individual rights, so then this bias is no better than slavery.
www.nbcnews.com
