

There is so much more context behind that. The two are not at all comparable.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
You’re completely ignoring what happens in the first paragraph of NATO Article 5. The Security Council only comes into play if they get off their ass. The Security Council rarely gets off its ass, because too many countries that hate each other have veto power. NATO will continue operations for the defense of its members regardless.
None of that is true of the Budapest Memorandum. They bring it up with the Security Council, and that’s it.
Are you going to keep digging this hole?
Seems like every time the hype is about to die, there’s a big announcement about a model breakthrough. The breakthrough usually isn’t as revolutionary as it first appears, but it’s enough to keep funding going.