Replies

I'll just leave your utter non-responses (befitting the trollish behavior you project on others) to the historical record for others to see, and let them decide for themselves as to whether or not your interpretations have any weight:

The Budapest Memorandum, as well as the words of the Minsk I and II agreements.

More on the Budapest Memorandum.

On the Lisbon Protocol of Ukraine's accession to the NPT, in which it's made clear that neither the United States nor Russia were ever going to accept Ukraine as a nuclear power, well before the Budapest Memorandum was even a thought.

Additional context in relation to NATO, including the highly inconvenient fact that the Budapest Memorandum was made with a government that got overthrown in the Maidan Revolution in 2014.

I'll let woodpusher's own words (who went through all the legwork of providing the source documents for everyone to see) serve as summary:

____

As shown by the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine obligated itself to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty long before the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine did not accede to the NPT for security but, along with Belarus and Khazhakstan, acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation as a condition for obtaining sovereignty.

As shown by Minsk I and Minsk II, Ukraine also took on obligations as part of a ceasefire agreement in 2014-2015, after one of its revolutions which overthrew the lawful government. The Budapest Memorandum was with a government overthrown by subsequent revolution. There is no agreement with the current, post-revolution government of Ukraine.

While you like to maintain that Ukraine should go back to the status quo ante before the Budapest Agreement, that would go back to before they were a recognized sovereign nation. You say they should get their nukes back. The international community was firm, including both the United States and Russia, that none of the breakaway USSR republics would be recognized without acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation. Their only choice was to get rid of them all, or be ostracized. All three got rid of them all. Ukraine tried to make their accession conditional and the United States and Russia firmly rejected the effort. Ukraine rescinded the conditions and acceded to the NPT for recognized sovereign status.

The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. It is a diplomatic Memorandum. It contains no obligation by the United States, or anyone, to militarily assist or intervene in case of Ukraine being a victim of aggression. It explicitly provides that such a matter will be referred to the UN Security Council for action. That is what was done.

_____

To which, it must be said, your pithy responses were: "ad infinitum, ad nauseum troll", and "Do you expect me to read all that garbage you keep throwing around in an ad nauseam ad infinitum fashion?"

Because if there's one thing I'd like to call primary sources, it's 'garbage'. /s

I'll just leave your utter non-responses (befitting the trollish behavior you project on others) to the historical record
***Since you came onto the discussion long and well after woodsucker was trolling me, it makes sense to once again point out to you where I stopped reading his [and now yours] wall-of-text tag team trolling bullshiite...
for others to see, and let them decide for themselves as to whether or not your interpretations have any weight: The Budapest Memorandum, as well as the words of the Minsk I and II agreements. More on the Budapest Memorandum. On the Lisbon Protocol of Ukraine's accession to the NPT, in which it's made clear that neither the United States nor Russia were ever going to accept Ukraine as a nuclear power, well before the Budapest Memorandum was even a thought. Additional context in relation to NATO, including the highly inconvenient fact that the Budapest Memorandum was made with a government that got overthrown in the Maidan Revolution in 2014. I'll let woodpusher's own words (who went through all the legwork of providing the source documents for everyone to see) serve as summary: ____ As shown by the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine obligated itself to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty long before the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine did not accede to the NPT for security but, along with Belarus and Khazhakstan, acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation as a condition for obtaining sovereignty. As shown by Minsk I and Minsk II, Ukraine also took on obligations as part of a ceasefire agreement in 2014-2015, after one of its revolutions which overthrew the lawful government. The Budapest Memorandum was with a government overthrown by subsequent revolution. There is no agreement with the current, post-revolution government of Ukraine. While you like to maintain that Ukraine should go back to the status quo ante before the Budapest Agreement, that would go back to before they were a recognized sovereign nation. You say they should get their nukes back. The international community was firm, including both the United States and Russia, that none of the breakaway USSR republics would be recognized without acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation. Their only choice was to get rid of them all, or be ostracized. All three got rid of them all. Ukraine tried to make their accession conditional and the United States and Russia firmly rejected the effort. Ukraine rescinded the conditions and acceded to the NPT for recognized sovereign status. The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. It is a diplomatic Memorandum. It contains no obligation by the United States, or anyone, to militarily assist or intervene in case of Ukraine being a victim of aggression. It explicitly provides that such a matter will be referred to the UN Security Council for action. That is what was done. _____ To which, it must be said, your pithy responses were: "ad infinitum, ad nauseum troll", and "Do you expect me to read all that garbage you keep throwing around in an ad nauseam ad infinitum fashion?" Because if there's one thing I'd like to call primary sources, it's 'garbage'. /s