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.
Why would we look at the speck in our brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in our own eye?
The Budapest Memorandum is a red herring. Our country is being invaded by the same people telling us "look, a Budapest Memorandum!".
Was this a treaty ratified by the Senate?
Okay, now I see where you were going.
The Ukes got duped by us, the irish, and the brits. They are in an existential war and if they blow up Moscow, who is to look sideways at them for doing it? US? We did the same thing to Japan.
Personally, I think it would be kind of interesting to see Moscow blown to hell. But then they might retaliate against us, and... that could get messy.
So it is in our best interest to honor our agreement towards sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. Plain language. Plain enough to drive a nuke suitcase bomb through the loopholes, sure I admit it, but is that what we want?
If I were a Uke, I’d be building one of them Nukes right now. So I’m pretty confident this is going on.
Tell us, what is the right thing to do? Find that loophole and sell them down the river? [commonly called FAFO] Or honor our plain commitment to their sovereignty and borders?
That would be a real interesting question to ask after the Ukes plant a Nuke on Russian soil.
Real interesting.
dvwjr
What nobody seems to be mentioning here is that this “1994 Budapest Memorandum” is no more binding on the U.S. than the Kyoto or Paris climate change agreements.
That’s fine. They just gave up a third of the Russian nuke arsenal, that’s all.
Pay no attention to the man behind the nukurtain.
I’ve always been under the impression that Ukraine had almost no leverage in 1994. It was a poor, backward quasi-state and pretty much had to agree to whatever terms the U.S. and Russian governments negotiated between themselves.
No; it was only signed by the Presidents of Ukraine/Russia/USA and and the Prime Minister of the UK.
It carries no enforcement mechanisms or binding penalties for violations of the terms therein.
I suppose we’ll never know about that particular “what if?”.
In the early 1990s Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal was comprised of outdated weapons that they probably wouldn’t even want to have ready to use on short notice anyway. It’s kind of like asking why they gave up their Commodore 64 computers.
Red Herring?
***Yes. Red herring. You wanna talk about illegal colonization, then open up a thread on immigration.
Why would we look at the speck in our brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in our own eye?
***Those are Christ’s words about MORAL hypocrisy. So go ahead and open up your own thread about your process and desire to remove the immigration plank from the eye of America. I support ya 100% on that. I agree with you. It’s just that you’re using this bullsnot as a red herring, so quit doing that.
The Budapest Memorandum is a red herring.
***Not on this thread it aint. Gigantic duhh factor. Yuge.
Our country is being invaded
***Illegally colonized. Open up that thread.
by the same people telling us “look, a Budapest Memorandum!”.
***Bullshiite. We’re being illegally colonized by people looking for work. They KNOW they’re going to be 2nd class [non]citizens but they dont’ mind at ALL. So go ahead and open up that thread.
Let’s keep in mind that Ukraine has been a corrupt, dysfunctional dump for years … so it’s not as if a stable government would be in control of that nuclear arsenal. There would have been an alarming possibility that it would have ended up under the control of one or more warring factions within Ukraine.
No it is not like asking to give up Commodore computers unless you’re talking about going back in time to when there were NO computers.
Any 3rd year physics undergrad can design a nuke bomb.
https://www.amazon.com/Mushroom-True-Story-Bomb-Kid/dp/0671827316
They had enough nuke material to build the 3rd largest nuke aresenal in the world.
Why do you think the representatives of 2/3 of the STATES had to agree to bind the STATES with treaties and to make war in the name of the united STATES?
"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,
Indeed it is. However, you left out against Ukraine except in self-defence and Putin defenders here and elsewhere imagine that Ukraine is a threat despite giving up is nukes and having a small military, and that NATO also threatens Russia, even though it is historical actions by Russian and now by Putin that justify its existence in self-defense.
See Post #51.
***I posted a response. Why not post from that subthread?
I don’t think the new government of Ukraine was in any position to deal with those weapons anyway.
***They were in a position, they gave UP that position for assurances which turned out to be hollow.
Let’s keep in mind that Ukraine has been a corrupt, dysfunctional dump for years …
***They are a sovereign nation who has been invaded by Russia, breaking a straightforward treaty that, when thrown out the window, opens up a yuge nuke path towards nuke war all because you think they’re corrupt. So are we. So is Russia.
so it’s not as if a stable government would be in control of that nuclear arsenal.
***We’ve seen that scenario play out in Pakistan. Nukes introduce a kind of stability that never worked in the past. The relinquishment of nukes — in Ukraine and in South Africa — led to loss of sovereignty. I think it would take them only about 2 months to design a crude nuke bomb, based upon how the A-Bomb kid did it himself in about that amount of time.
There would have been an alarming possibility that it would have ended up under the control of one or more warring factions within Ukraine.
***I agree that it woulda been quite alarming and the right thing to do was to dismantle those nukes in exchange for severeignty assurances. Since those assurances amount to piss in the wind, any restraints towards building nukes from their own nuke knowledge are effectively removed and there’s no incentive to go back to such a useless agreement.
Yet another reason why it is in the Ukes’ interest to build their own Nukes.
Not very smart on our part to be encouraging this line of reasoning. Russia is clearly in the wrong and we should be doing a ton of stuff to stop them. Hopefully that doesn’t mean American body bags but there is a direct path towards nuke war if we don’t do what we can to stop this nonsense.
That Ukraine could invoke self-defence as a reason to use military weapons against Russia is logical and perfectly reasonable.
The only way America could invoke self-defence, however, with how this Memorandum was worded would be if *Ukraine* attacked *America*. Read it again: “...the USA reaffirms [its] obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against...Ukraine, and that none of [America’s] weapons will ever be used **against** Ukraine except in self-defence...”
Invoking “self-defence” to justify America intervening in Ukraine to fight Russian invaders is nonsensical.
No, because the nation of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup. That is like my killing my neighbor and demanding that his debtors honor their obligations over to me now.
Old Ukraine ended when that government was assassinated by a coup.
When Mao took over China, I doubt US companies honored contracts they had with old China.
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.