Posted on 03/05/2022 6:28:01 PM PST by Kevmo
Russia is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
From Conservapedia:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances:_1994
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances: 1994
At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,800 strategic warheads, 176 long-range ballistic missiles, and 42 strategic bombers.
To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum included assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States took custody and control of Ukraine's obsolete nuclear stockpiles for disposal in exchange for assurances by the United States and NATO to safeguard Ukraine's independence. Ukraine was coaxed to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for a written pledge, should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power.
By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its operational nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.[101]
-------------------------------------------------------
There has been a recent update to the Wikipedia page :
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Wikipedia intro section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2]
---------------------------------------------------------
Further information on Wikipedia page
Annexation of Crimea by Russia Further information: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia after hosting the Budapest Memorandum Ministerial on the Ukraine crisis in Paris, France, on 5 March 2014. In February 2014, Russian forces seized or blockaded various airports and other strategic sites throughout Crimea.[32] The troops were attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea,[33] which placed Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Foreign Ministry had confirmed the movement of armoured units attached to the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea but asserted that they were acting within the scope of the various agreements between the two countries.[citation needed] Russia responded by supporting a referendum on whether the Crimea should join it. Russia announced the referendums were being conducted by "local forces". On 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea and Ukraine vigorously protested the action as a violation of Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum.
In response to the crisis, the Ukrainian parliament requested the Memorandum's signatories to reaffirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in the political agreement and asked for them to hold consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions.[34]
On 24 March 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the G7 partners in an ad hoc meeting during the Nuclear Security Summit, at The Hague, for a partial suspension of Russian membership due to Russia's breach of the Budapest Memorandum. He said that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons "on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity. By breaching that guarantee, President Putin has provided a rationale for those elsewhere who needed little more than that already furnished by pride or grievance to arm themselves to the teeth." Harper also indicated support for Ukraine by saying he would work with the new Ukrainian government towards a free trade agreement.[35]
In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes."[36] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out that "there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is 'to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'". Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov's claim on the Twitter account of Russia's embassy in the United Kingdom actually "provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated – right there for everyone to see." Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented on "the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?"[37] Russia argued that the United States broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the Yanukovych government.
On 20 April 2016, Ukraine established the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories,[38] to manage occupied parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions, which are affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.
Have you ever seen “Animal House”?
The Ukraine is Flounder.
Quite honestly, I don’t know why Ukraine agreed to the Memorandum back in 1994.
It was only within recent memory at that time that America had displayed its willingness to abandon an ally when the “going got tough” (see South Vietnam), or to turn on said ally when the power dynamics were different (see Saddam Hussein, who the US backed during the Iran-Iraq War, only to turn on him during the first Gulf War when the political winds had changed).
But this Memorandum is a red herring anyway, because it lacks any means of compliance or enforcement that would be binding upon those who violated the terms therein.
***So then the Ukes are free to pursue the nuke option, which they said explicitly. Since they had the 3rd largest nuke arsenal before they dismantled it, we can safely assume that there’s some Ukes who know how to build Nukes.
The nukes will provide the “means of compliance or enforcement”.
If I were Ukranian, I’d be busy doing pretty much exactly that.
Anyway the nukes were soviet, not Ukrainian. And last, Ukraine was supposed to remain neutral. The deal was abrogated long ago by the Ukes. But in any case, thank god those corrupt idiots don’t have any.
I think they were enamored with the fall of the Soviet Union and wanted to be buddy-buddy with the new big kid on the block. They CLAIM they wanted neutrality but all they ever do is act like a sidekick country.
The deal was abrogated long ago by the Ukes
***How is that? The Ukes gave up their Nukes.
Yup. They fracked up and trusted us.
Yet another attempt at introducing red herrings into the discussion. Take your red herrings to an immigration thread.
Why are they bringing this up? Do they want to give Ukraine thousands of Western warheads to make up for it?
Gave up weapons and was cooperating on Islamic terrorism and the Kenyanesian Usurpation killed him for it.
I guarantee that the geopolitical questions would be entirely different if Ukraine hadn’t given up its nukes (and quite frankly, they shouldn’t have).
“Ukraine was coaxed to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for a written pledge, should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power.”
By signing the Budapest Memorandum, the USA did not agree to militarily defend Ukraine. That is simply not in the Memorandum and,
apart from this entry which is wrong, virtually nobody has contended otherwise. It is not a defense treaty and it never was.
What do you think Kevmo? We all know that a “big tent Republican”
***So, you’re one of those guys who just reads the first sentence of sumthin and makes opinions from there. It’s time for another bugzapper thread for the likes of you.
From my home page:
___________________________
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks.
What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent.
We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not.
Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney.
That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
just basically describes a neocon leftist who wakes up in the morning with the sheets held up by a war-boner.
***I’m a paleocon, not a neocon. We obligated ourselves to the Ukes and they gave up the Nukes, making the world safer for everyone except them. We did this.
We are being subjugated at home here in America
***Red herring. I started this thread, you start YOURs.
yet you are trying to lead us into a foreign war
***We led ourselves into this foreign ENTANGLEMENT when we got them to give up their nukes for ‘assurances’.
where we have no interest.
***The agreement is very explicit about where our interests are. Indeed, the 2022 update is that the Ukes are pursuing their own Nukes. Appeasement pantywaists like you are leading them straight down a nuclear warpath.
Who pays you?
***Who pays you? You’re an appeaser. I signed up here 20 years before YOU did. Say hello to your paymaster Vlad.
Since you are so vehement and sure of yourself about this, you should take that up with the folks at Conservapedia. Go on. Let’s see some progress... scoot.
Yup. And you know what? They got Chernobyl, the perfect place to claim they tested a nuke if they’re only bluffing.
They’ve got more than enough expertise to pursue their own nukes, and who will convince them to give up nukes a second time? Vlad? One of the appeasers on FR? Brandon?
They screwed kaddafy, qaddafy, quaddafy in Libya, after he gave up his chemical weapons and cooperated on Islamic terrorism.
(don’t know what happened to previous post)
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]
Basically, it means they’re free to pursue nukes. They have the knowledge.
Or, instead of looking at Conservapedia’s summary of the Memorandum, you can read the original:
Quote:
“Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the cold war, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 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;
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 Non-Proliferation 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;
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the Ukrainian, English and Russian languages.
For Ukraine:
(Signed) Leonid D. KUCHMA
For the Russian Federation:
(Signed) Boris N. YELTSIN
For the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland:
(Signed) John MAJOR
For the United States of America:
(Signed) William J. CLINTON
Un-quote.
There is nothing in it that states America is *obligated* to defend the Ukraine should Russia (or anyone else) actually attack it. It’s more akin to a non-interference agreement (with an emphasis on nuclear weapons and the usage thereof) than a mutual defense treaty.
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
***Russia broke that provision by invading Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine,
***Plain as day.
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 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression
***Where is that commitment? As hollow as a straw, that’s where our commitment is.
However, Stingray's point was that Conservapedia's interpretation of the Memorandum — namely, that "should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power" — is quite simply false, and not supported by the text of the Memorandum in the least.
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.