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.
That was never a document that was passed through Congress.
No, because the nation of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup.
***First I’ve heard of it. And likely to be the first many here on FR have heard of it, so you’ll really really really need to focus on developing this as an acceptable fact. At this point I would consider it fake news but that has a way of quickly changing these days.
That is like my killing my neighbor and demanding that his debtors honor their obligations over to me now.
***Not if it aint true.
Old Ukraine ended when that government was assassinated by a coup.
***Assuming it’s true. You’re building upon sumthin which has not been acknowledged as an accepted fact. That’s a logical house of cards.
When Mao took over China, I doubt US companies honored contracts they had with old China.
***When China let Europe develop gunpowder, I doubt it had anything to do with logic, just like your house of cards logic has been demonstrated. So build the foundations under it before you build that fantastic logic castle in the sky.
That will be real interesting discussion when we talk about the Nuke bomb the Ukes build and deploy now that they’re free of the constraints of that nonbinding toilet paper.
How can it be a “straightforward treaty” when one of the signatories — namely, THE U.S. — can’t legally consider it a treaty?
You bring plenty to the table here, but if you get something as simple as that wrong, I really have to question everything else you’re posting here.
can’t legally consider it a treaty?
***Bullsnot. We can consider it a treaty just as much as Vlad considered it violable.
Answer this: Did the Ukes relinquish their nukes in good faith or did they not?
Just helping you fill in some blanks.
You bring plenty to the table here, but if you get something as simple as that wrong, I really have to question everything else you’re posting here.
***That’s false dilemma fallacy thinking right there. Since you are proven wrong by Vlad disregarding the very same treaty, everything else you’ve written is wrong as well. Go ahead and unpoison THAT well, since you’re so fond of using logical fallacies.
Did the Ukes relinquish their nukes in good faith or did they not?
I have no idea. Do you?
Answer this: Did the Ukrainian government sign that agreement under duress, or not?
Under international law, a “treaty” is defined as a legally-binding agreement between nations.
The Budapest Memorandum contains no means of enforcement, no means of making the signatories comply, and no means of levying penalties in the event of violations.
Furthermore, as far as America specifically is concerned, a treaty is only legally-binding if two-thirds of the Senate concurs, per the US Constitution.
Since the Memorandum was never ratified by the US Senate, it is not, legally speaking, a “treaty.”
You make it sound like Ukraine can build and deploy these things in a matter of days or weeks.
If that’s true, then why didn’t they do it after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014?
If it was never ratified by the Senate then it isn’t a treaty.
***Then the Ukes are free to pursue their Nukes. And since they’re in an existential war, to drop them just like we did in our existential war. No treaty, according to you.
This is no subtle distinction, either.
***When we are talking about 200,000 dead Russians and a nuke cloud above them, I doubt you will be talking like that.
If it isn’t a treaty then the U.S. government can’t even consider it legally binding on U.S. citizens.
***We’ve engaged in all kinds of other conflicts with no treaties in place. I doubt Grenada had a nuclear path.
Kevmo: Did the Ukes relinquish their nukes in good faith or did they not?
AC: I have no idea. Do you?
***Yes I do. They did. Since you have no idea, perhaps you should be focusing on that thing which is “ no subtle distinction, either.”
Answer this: Did the Ukrainian government sign that agreement under duress, or not?
***Sure they did. Will they be building those nuke bombs under duress, or not? If I were a Uke I’d be on that project. That A-Bomb kid did it in a few weeks, there’s no doubt in my mind that it is very doable before the Russians even take Kiev. How are you gonna feel when there’s a second Chernobyl size area inside Russia that used to house a large Russian military contingent? Or even when Moscow is vaporized and Vlad survives claiming it was the fault of the USA so he’s gonna retaliate?
I think we are now at the point where we can sit back and see how this plays out without even discussing the matter further.
Ukraine appeals for foreign volunteers to join fight against Russia
Here’s your chance to make a difference.
They say you know everything when you're angry.
Cool. Thanks. What are YOU doing? After all, this has a direct pathway towards nukular warfare. Appeasement led to this existential situation for Ukraine. It would be as if Checkoslovakia had the means to blow NAZI Germany away with only 2 bombs. Whacha gonna do to stop that? Talk & jabber about our southern border?
Nukular. ?
So what, I really don’t care and will not support a war with Russia over this. Ukraine is on it’s on. Let ehe Russians have it.
After following your previously informative posts for several days I see that you’ve now devolves into making outlandish predictions about nuclear clouds over Russia. That was quick.
***I’m the one being OUTLANDISH? The guy you are covering for, Putin, claimed it himself. We sold the Ukes down this river, so we need to be prepared for the consequences. Appeasement like your approach led to WW2, and could lead to a nuke exchange.
I think we are now at the point where we can sit back and see how this plays out without even discussing the matter further.
***That’s fine with me. Your side seems incapable of defending its positions without throwing around outlandish insults, crossing thread boundaries to harass fellow FReepers, and simply jump up & down screaming rather than answering points rationally. Best of luck with sitting back & watching it play out.
That seems to be a popular sentiment around here.
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.