Posted on 04/24/2022 4:47:21 PM PDT by conservative98
“I figured you knew, just wanted you to know you slipped. :)”
And slipped I did! :)
There you go again
There you go again, unable to respond to the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum and unable to even acknowledge the text of Minsk I and Minsk II.
which did not include protecting signatory nations.
***Invading a signatory nation is an obvious violation of that agreement. There is such a gigantic duhh factor to all of this. But you can’t see it.
I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.
***Let’s see how stupid YOU are: Is it or is it not a violation of that agreement to invade a signatory country by another signatory to that agreement? Oh, I know, you won’t answer because you’re in troll mode and guys like you never answer the question when it shows you to be flat wrong. And stupid.
Trolls gotta troll.
YOU: 🐂💩
“Invading a signatory nation is an obvious violation of that agreement”
You obviously also know nothing about law or treaties. You’re one of those idiots that is easy to beat in court because you assume things not in writing. You act as though those that write treaties are either too lazy or stupid to state exactly these things you assume.
Since you want to beat up Russia so bad, go there and do so. You claim as an American you have a legal obligation to do so, so go, do it. Ukraine is accepting foreign volunteers.
Clearly you wear your sphincter hat too tight.
It explains everything.
I work in a field where public safety is paramount. If someone in my profession tells me they have a great new idea for a bridge design, I'm going to consider it a bad idea until it is proven otherwise. I'm not sure why that approach to business -- and life in general -- would be a problem for anyone.
Ukraine had no such thing. What they "had" was hundreds of Soviet weapons. They had no claim on any of them if their intention was to establish themselves as an independent nation. It would be like Florida seceding from the U.S. and claiming possession of the U.S. Navy vessels stationed in Jacksonville.
Russia, by invading. The USA by not ‘respecting’ the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. The rest of the UN by going silent about it.
If the invasion of one country by another somehow constitutes a violation of the NPT, then the U.S. should be sanctioned for the next thousand years just for what it has been doing since the NPT was signed in 1968.
Kevmo:“Invading a signatory nation is an obvious violation of that agreement”
Toad:You obviously also know nothing about law or treaties.
***Like I said, guys like you never address the issue. Time to start treating you like the troll you have become.
You’re one of those idiots
***Looking through our short discourse, sure enough, you’re the one starting in with the ad hominems. You can’t defend your position.
that is easy to beat in court because you assume things not in writing.
***I assume that an Accession to a United Nations RATIFIED Nuclear NonProliferation TREATY is an accession to a ratified treaty.
You act as though
***You act as though you cannot defend your position. You act as a troll.
those that write treaties are either too lazy or stupid to state exactly these things you assume.
***The treaty is straight forward, an invasion by one of the signatories into the sovereignty/borders of another signatory is a violation of the treaty. Duhh. Gigantic, blinking, glaring DUHHH sign. But you can’t see it.
Ukraine had no such thing. What they “had” was hundreds of Soviet weapons.
***Weapons which could have been opened up, get their weapons grade fissionable material, and make real bad nukes within a matter of weeks.
They had no claim on any of them
***Those nukes were on Uke territory.
if their intention was to establish themselves as an independent nation.
***They’ve been invaded twice since giving up those nukes. They never woulda been invaded had they kept those nukes.
It would be like Florida seceding from the U.S. and claiming possession of the U.S. Navy vessels stationed in Jacksonville.
***And if they managed to do that, we woulda thought twice about invading them. The fact is, Ukraine has been invaded twice because oil & gas reserves were discovered there, and they no longer had those nukes to deter invasion. Their only path was to rely on that agreement, to rely on us, and folks like you are fiercely looking for ways to betray them.
Kevmo:Russia, by invading. The USA by not ‘respecting’ the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. The rest of the UN by going silent about it.
AC: If the invasion of one country by another somehow constitutes a violation of the NPT,
***You honestly think that when an agreement says to uphold the borders and sovereignty of a nation, that invading that nation isn’t a violation of that agreement? Really? That is just an incredible pile of bullshiite. Look at where your position has pushed you into such a bullshiite corner. You are flat wrong.
then the U.S. should be sanctioned for the next thousand years just for what it has been doing since the NPT was signed in 1968.
***Where have we invaded a country that signed an NNPT as a conquest of their oil & gas rights? You’re conflating dozens of issues in your desperate attempt to keep to that a priori position you’ve established for yourself.
Caution and skepticism are not classical fallacies.
***a priori reasoning IS a classical fallacy and you upheld it as if it were sound reasoning.
I work in a field where public safety is paramount.
***Then learn to avoid classic fallacies.
If someone in my profession tells me they have a great new idea for a bridge design,
***That would be the difference between DEDUCTIVE reasoning and INDUCTIVE reasoning. I have noticed that engineers have this tendency to misapply deductive principles upon inductive realms.
I’m going to consider it a bad idea until it is proven otherwise.
***I’ll just consider everything you say to be a bad idea until it is proven otherwise. You don’t even know the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive.
I’m not sure why that approach to business — and life in general — would be a problem for anyone.
***Because it tosses good ideas. You don’t know how to use inductive reasoning. People like you are just bypassed in industries, and you don’t even know it. That’s how guys like Elon Musk are building space ships while you’re designing a pedal-powered 2-wheel transportation device with bells & whistles.
Clearly you’re just a troll.
Since you want to beat up Russia so bad, go there and do so.
***I will. Set up that gofundme account and sendme. I’ll join their suitcase nuke program. Make sure you include your address so we can test it out on your neighborhood.
You claim as an American you have a legal obligation to do so, so go, do it.
***I claim that we signed up to assure their sovereignty. You seem to claim that when one country invades another, it aint a violation of a border/sovereignty agreement between those 2 nations.
Ukraine is accepting foreign volunteers.
***Set up that gofundme thing and I’ll go. I’ll even keep you updated on how I spend your money.
...and the Budapest Agreement was an accession to that ratified nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
Bullcrap, as I have told you before.
The MEMORANDUM is not a Treaty for anyone, and it is NOT and Accession instrument by Ukraine.
The MEMORANDUM states "Welcoming the Accession of Ukraine...." Who is welcoming the accession of Ukraine in the third person? Ukraine?
You AGAIN willfully and deliberately misrepresent a diplomatic MEMORANDUM by four nations as Ukraine's accession document, and as a Treaty. As it was not a treaty, it was not submitted to the Senate for ratification.
While you must run and hide from the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum, or what an accession instrument actually looks like, here they are again.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/modelinstruments/model_instrument_of_accession-English.pdf
MODEL INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION(To be signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs)
ACCESSION _____________
WHEREAS the [title of treaty, convention, agreement, etc.] was [concluded, adopted, opened for signature, etc.] at [place] on [date],
NOW THEREFORE I, [name and title of the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs] declare that the Government of [name of State], having considered the above-mentioned [treaty, convention, agreement, etc.], accedes to the same and undertakes faithfully to perform and carry out the stipulations therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument of accession at [place] on [date].
[Signature]
- - - - - - - - - -
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
Having brought the matter before the UN Security Council, the assurance given in the Budapest Memorandum was satisfied.
The Breach: Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum
Mariana Budjeryn
[excerpt]
Though some in Washington were inclined to entertain the idea of a nuclear Ukraine, US Secretary of State James Baker took a firm view that only Russia should succeed the Soviet Union as a nuclear state, lest the unraveled Soviet Union should become a “Yugoslavia with nukes.”[...]
On December 5, at the CSCE summit [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe] in Budapest, presidents of the US, UK, Russia, and Ukraine signed a diplomatic Memorandum that, as pledged, confirmed the now familiar security assurances. In addition, it included a truncated version of the consultation mechanism Ukraine once proposed. Article 6 of the Memorandum merely stated that the parties “will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”
[...]
The perceptions of Russian threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine that underpinned its demands for security guarantees in the early 1990s have proved justified. Bereft of allies and weakened by perennial ad governance that led to an internal political crisis, Ukraine became an easy target for Mr. Putin. The Budapest Memorandum failed to deter Russian aggression because it imposed no immediate cost for its violation. The political assurances it provided rested on the goodwill and self-restraint of the guarantors, an arrangement that can work between allies but not potential adversaries.
This did not guarantee any military action. It only gave non-binding assurances to bring any future acts of aggression before the U.N. Security Council.
Those assurances were the best Ukraine could get. They were accepted and Ukraine acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it could not achieve international recognition as a sovereign state as a nuclear nation.
We should never have made such a commitment. We should have let them keep their nukes.
Yes, of course.
Poland and 3 baltic states are in NATO. Big difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.