Posted on 03/05/2022 6:28:01 PM PST by Kevmo
Execution of ‘nuclear Ukraine’ project was mere months away, source says
3/6/2022, 5:19:29 PM · 101 of 148
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4044173/posts?page=101#101
Kevmo to thinden
Putin DID cite this talking point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Main article: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly commented on the Budapest Memorandum by arguing that it provides no true guarantee of safety due to Russia’s coercive power. On 19 February 2022, Zelenskyy made a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said “Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. ... If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.”[42] Putin used Zelenskyy’s comments as part of his claims that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons. Critics have disputed Putin’s claims.[43] This treaty has since been violated by Russia at the outbreak of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies
“Not a treaty?”
Registration Number 52241
Title Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the TREATY on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb
I will be answering the treaty aspects to our discussion here on the treaty discussion thread.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4053670/posts?page=164#164
Ultra Sonic 007 to Kevmo
Kevmo: It is an accession to a Treaty. Asked & Answered
US7:The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is separate from the Budapest Memorandum.
***It is an accession, an addendum to the Treaty. Hence, it is a treaty.
They are not one and the same.
***They are interrelated as elements of the nonproliferation Treaty.
Kevmo: One of the signatories to the treaty INVADED the other.
US7: And again, what does the Memorandum call for?
***And again, since this wasn’t “really” an invasion, the Rukes “really” were “respecting” Uke borders and sovereignty then that leaves it wide open for us to go in and kick Ruke ass and restore the original borders, per the Agreement.
Going to the UN Security Council. And that’s only *if* nuclear weapons were used against a non-nuclear state.
***That part aint true. There are elements of straightforward conventional threats and antagonism mentioned in the treaty. But I don’t really care that much about it, the wording is there for everyone to read.
Don’t blame me for the Memo being toothless.
***I sure do blame you because you are trying to make it even MORE toothless and allow this kind of nuclear proliferation to flourish across the world while at the same time as appeasing an obvious regional tyrant.
Kevmo: From my perspective we should send volunteer American forces in a Lend Lease program where we fight for American emBASEee territory in Ukraine. I call it the emBASEee strategee and the Lend Leasee strategee, the BBudapest AAgreement LLend LLease approach which would take BALLs.
US7: Cute. Go ahead and see if your Congressman will bring it up for a vote.
***There are all kinds of things that can take place militarily long before a congressional vote is deemed necessary. Besides, this current congress is probably ready to intervene.
It’s not like we have more pressing domestic problems.
***Gettin’ our representatives to represent us is definitely a problem, but I don’t mind that they are tryin’ to do the right thing about nuclear nonproliferation; you seem to be okay with such nuclear proliferation.
....
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies
It is an addendum to UKRAINE'S accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. By standard practice and custom, for the Memorandum to have any legal force as far as America is concerned (beyond the presidency of Bill Clinton, at the very most), it would have had to go through the U.S. Senate with two-thirds approval, same as with any other treaty.
To provide a contrasting example, take the Accession of Montenegro to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949: when Montenegro wanted to join NATO, their accession to that treaty was voted on by the US Senate, where it passed on 3/28/2017 by a vote of 97 to 2.
Since the Budapest Memo was not treated the same, all of your other points related to the Memo are summarily dismissed as a consequence.
Gettin’ our representatives to represent us is definitely a problem, but I don’t mind that they are tryin’ to do the right thing about nuclear nonproliferation; you seem to be okay with such nuclear proliferation.
Not to the degree you seem to. I think America has no business getting involved in direct conflict in yet another conventional war between European states. Europe has a far more vested interest in the conflict than we do, being neighbors to both. But contra you, I don't think selling arms and materials to Ukraine will accomplish anything other than prolonging the war and making the ultimate cost on both sides more expensive as a result.
By standard practice and custom,
***It is standard practice and custom to help a country which has been invaded, which has a TREATY with another country, for that honor-bound country to “respect” its borders and sovereignty. Especially when the invading country is one of the signatories to that accession of the treaty. It is the right thing to do.
No matter how often you repeat this, the fact that this Budapest Memorandum has no binding force on America, due to lacking Senate approval, will not change. It is the right thing to do.
The Memorandum doesn't demand military intervention from the United States, no matter how hard you look for it.
And after the lovely results of America's foreign military 'adventures' over the past two decades, I still maintain that getting involved in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the wrong thing for America right now.
No matter how often you repeat this, the fact that this Budapest Memorandum has no binding force on America, due to lacking Senate approval, will not change.
***It is an accession to an approved nuclear nonproliferation treaty, signed by the prez. Accession protocols are well established at the UN. What is the problem you have with that?
It is the right thing to do.
***The right thing to do is respect the borders and sovereignty of the Ukraine, as we signed onto.
The Memorandum doesn’t demand military intervention from the United States, no matter how hard you look for it.
***It doesn’t prevent it. It says nuke proliferation is a real bad thing and we’re gonna do sumthin about it in da Ukraine, so that’s what we did. And now that the Ukes are takin’it up the backside from the Rukes, NOW is when you’re lookin’ to get all nitpicky about rules. Then get nitpicky about accession protocols to United Nations nonproliferation treaties that have been ratified. Go ahead.
And after the lovely results of America’s foreign military ‘adventures’ over the past two decades,
***Wouldn’t be a problem if we followed the emBASEee strategee.
I still maintain that getting involved in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the wrong thing for America right now.
***Then we never shoulda signed in 1994. It was right to sign in 1994, it was right to denuke the Ukes, and it is right to help them get their borders & sovereignty back.
My problem is that you're treating the Memorandum as something it's not.
Was the Budapest Memorandum ever approved by two-thirds of the United States Senate (as any such accession to treaties would require to have legal validity as far as America is concerned): yes or no?
My problem is that you’re treating the Memorandum as something it’s not.
***Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not. In addition, you’re treating the whole issue in a manner where you had your conclusion — that we shouldn’t get involved — a priori and are applying all that to your reasoning process. That’s how you end up trying to unhook from a perfectly reasonable nonproliferation treaty, from staring down a regional bully Putler who has INVADED a signatory country twice over oil & gas, and from simply doing the right thing in this situation.
Was the Budapest Memorandum ever approved
***Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?
by two-thirds of the United States Senate
***The TREATY that it is a part of, that treaty was approved. The ACCESSION process that was used, that was approved AFAICT. Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.
(as any such accession to treaties would require to have legal validity as far as America is concerned): yes or no?
***If it’s the right thing to do, is it right to do it? Yes or no?
***
You assume that contributing military aid at this juncture is in fact the "right" thing, which I don't agree with.
Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not.
The non-proliferation treaty you refer to can be read here; what exactly does the current conflict have anything to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?
Not our war, not our business. Or do you think America should be the policeman of the entire world?
Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.
Here's a curious thing: one of the things the Memorandum also stipulates is that the United States, the UK, and Russia were to refrain from "economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." Would you count as an example of economic coercion, as just one example, Joseph R. Biden's threat in 2015 to withhold a billion dollars in US loan guarantees if then-President Petro Poroshenko didn't sack Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin?
If it’s the right thing to do, is it right to do it?
You assume that contributing military aid at this juncture is in fact the “right” thing, which I don’t agree with.
***I didn’t assume it, I arrived at it. YOU assumed it and all your reasoning works backwards from there.
Kevmo:Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not.
US7: The non-proliferation treaty you refer to can be read here; what exactly does the current conflict have anything to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
***The current conflict never woulda happened if the Ukes hadn’t given up those weapons in that agreement. Also, other countries are watching intently and realizing that nukes mean sovereignty from big bullies, and that the USA cannot be trusted.
Kevmo:Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?
US7: Not our war, not our business.
***This is your assumption, and you work backwards from there. It IS our war because it happened due to us.
Or do you think America should be the policeman of the entire world?
***No. I think we should involve ourselves in this one because we involved ourselves when it benefited us.
Kevmo: Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.
US7: Here’s a curious thing:
***Here is a curious thing about your reply: You do not refute the premise; thereby you have accepted I’m correct in my approach.
one of the things the Memorandum also stipulates is that the United States, the UK, and Russia were to refrain from “economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.” Would you count as an example of economic coercion, as just one example, Joseph R. Biden’s threat in 2015 to withhold a billion dollars in US loan guarantees if then-President Petro Poroshenko didn’t sack Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin?
***Well, yes, I would. So the Ukes shoulda reported it as a violation of the treaty. Is INVADING the Ukraine a violation of the treaty? The Rukes don’t seem to think so, therefore we can just not-invade it ourselves and “respect the sovereignty” and borders per the original agreement. Set up emBASEees to counteract any future terrorism in that region, let the UN sort out any treaty violations from that point onward once the borders & sovereignty have been set to the boundaries stipulated.
All righty then. Since my tagline is turning into a point of discussion, and this has turned into an asked & answered thread, I’ll discuss my tagline here.
This Budapest Agreement was an “accession” to a signed international United Nations, ratified nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The Ukes honored it and gave up those nukes. The Rukes violated it twice by invading twice, by happenstance it was when there were weak-kneed democrap presidents in office whom Vlad knew would not do anything about an invasion. And the USA has been looking for all kinds of ways to abrogate our responsibility in this treaty/agreement even though it points to disaster down the road for nuclear nonproliferation.
So when I say give back the Ukes their nukes, it is an acknowledgement that nukes are sovereignty. They gave up some nukes in exchange for “assurances” for borders and sovereignty. Since they are in an existential war, who are we to scold them for building nukes since that is what we did when we were in our existential war, and we are the ones who have betrayed them.
If the Ukes develop and deploy a suitcase nuke on a Russian city, it is because they got pushed into an existential corner. What we really should be doing is putting CONVENTIONAL forces into this fight in a way that genuinely “assures” borders and sovereignty for a country that did the right thing. After all, the Russian bear has been shown to be rather toothless compared to what most of us thought they would be in this fight, so the US would kick some serious @$$.
And if we send in American boots on the ground, we damned well better be negotiating American Land as the thing to fight for. Big, sweeping American EmBASEees along the border between Russia and Ukraine. A Lend Lease project. Americans fighting for American land. For generations we could use that land to build airports and fight terrorism in that region. I would call it the BBudapest AAgreement LLend LLease program because it would take BALLs.
Lend Lease update video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slarv_ZEc8A
bttt
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.