Have you been paying attention to the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine?

If not, maybe you should, because the Washington Post reports:

Think that’s bad? The London Daily Mail reports:

A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.

Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine – agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.

Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine’s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters. …

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as British Ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said that war could be an option ‘if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding.’

It promises to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Today Kiev has demanded the agreement is activated after insisting their borders had been violated. …

Moscow has been sending mixed signals about Ukraine but pledged to respect its territorial integrity. Putin has long dreamed of pulling Ukraine, a country of 46 million people considered the cradle of Russian civilization, closer into Moscow’s orbit.

More on the treaty:

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was a international treaty signed on February, 5, 1994, in Budapest.

The diplomatic document saw signatories make promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine.

The agreement promises to protest Ukraine’s borders in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document.

It was an unprecedented case in contemporary international life and international law.

Whether is it legally binding in complex.

‘It is binding in international law, but that doesn’t mean it has any means of enforcement,’ says Barry Kellman is a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University’s College of Law told Radio Free Europe.

You may recall that the Clinton administration’s favorite military engagement was an engagement in which the U.S. had no actual strategic interests — to name two, Somalia and Kosovo. Twenty years later, we do have an actual strategic interest because Bill Clinton signed that treaty, unless you don’t think the U.S. signature on a treaty, or “diplomatic document,” should mean anything. (In which case we should immediately reinstitute the Monroe Doctrine and the Platt Amendment and eject the Castros from Cuba and the Chavezistas from Venezuela.)

One comment observed that such entangling alliances are what started World War I. The more apt comparison is to a smaller-scale version of the Cold War, the original of which was fought in Vietnam formally and Central America and Africa informally. Cold War II wouldn’t (or perhaps isn’t) between the U.S. and its allies and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact. But Putin would love to reassemble the Soviet Union without Communism. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about power.

You’ll notice that Putin has become expansionist during the Obama administration. That’s because Putin has concluded the U.S. won’t do anything about it. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 because Japan thought the U.S. was weak. Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 because he thought the U.S. was weak. What do you think Putin sees when he observes Obama, Joe Biden and John Francis Kerry?