Hey
@volinbham taje a look over this analysis when you get a second.
Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement
I found these two points rather disturbing but really par for the course in hindsight frankly. Purposely using language differences to obfuscate
Third, the English version mentions “security assurances,” while Ukrainian and Russian texts provide for “security guarantees.” This different wording is often explained by the fact that in
Ukrainian and Russian, the words “assurances” and “guarantees” are allegedly considered to be synonyms. However, there are much better, more accurate substitutes for “assurances” in Ukrainian and Russian, namely “запевнення” and “заверения.” The parties likely put different terms in different languages to create ambiguity. In retrospect, the Ukrainian Parliament probably would not have agreed to the term “assurances,” because “guarantees” represent something definitely more substantial. As a matter of international law, both terms can potentially signify political and legal obligations with varying degrees of obligations up to military support. For example, in 1975, President Nixon provided South Vietnam with “
absolute assurances” of U.S. “swift and severe retaliatory actions” “with full force.” Still, the word “guarantee” is customarily used with more robust commitments like those provided within military alliances and mutual defense treaties. The particular caution of U.S. diplomats toward the use of “guarantees” in diplomatic discourse (when clear legal obligations are not at issue) is exemplified by the following
comment on Iran’s request for potential guarantees of nonrepudiation of the Iran nuclear deal: “There is no such thing as a guarantee; that’s not in the nature of diplomacy.”
Fourth, the Budapest Memorandum’s Ukrainian version provides that it “enters into force upon signature.” The International Court of Justice found this specific wording to be an
“indicator” of a legally binding memorandum without the need for ratification. However, English and Russian versions provide an iterated softer language that the memorandum “will become applicable upon signature,” which contributes to its ambiguity.
puppets 
