Incorrect.
To be very clear:
The only place the Bucharest Memmorandum is not considered a treaty by some is the U.S. because it was not submitted to the Senate for approval.
So in your mind, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements between 1946 and 1999, with only 912 of those agreements submitted to the Senate.. so should ALL the other nations consider them “non-binding” as well?
ONCE AGAIN, since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.
Ukraine had control of over the world’s third-largest stockpile of nukes: bigger than China, Britain and France combined.
Russia, the UK, the US, and Ukraine concluded two years of negotiations with agreement that the signatories would among other things:
“respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”
“refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”
However, Ukraine’s sovereignty HAS been compromised despite security assurances and despite Kiev giving up nuclear stockpiles. Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Minister, said recently: “countries that have nuclear weapons won’t want to give them up, while countries that don’t have them may want to acquire them because that will be the only way to protect their territorial integrity!”
So, much for Obama’s international policy!
“So in your mind...”
NO...
Not in anyone’s mind, in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
NOTHING the President may sign with another nation is binding, without the consent of a SUPER-MAJORITY of the United States Senate.
NOTHING....
This includes Memoranda for Propaganda purposes like the Budapest Agreement.
What other nations do is their own affair.
The President of the United States has NO AUTHORITY to conclude agreements with other nations or states that are binding on the citizens of the 50 States. Why do you suppose it's the SENATE that has to ratify treaties, and not the Congress? It's because the Senate represents the States in their sovereign personae, that's why.
It does not matter if lawless Presidents conclude 16, 16 000, or 16 million phony "agreements", without Senate deliberation and ratification they are toilet paper.