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.
So what, I really don’t care
***Like I said on a previous thread, you do care but you just don’t know you care. Like you cared about 19 shiitebird muzzies taking flying lessons but not caring about landing the airplane.
and will not support a war with Russia over this.
***You’re already supporting a war with Russia over this. Whether or not it’s a nuke war — that’s the issue. If I were a Uke I’d be building a Nuke and I’d blow the hell out of Moscow with a suitcase bomb.
Ukraine is on it’s [own].
***We sold them down the river. Don’t be surprised if it turns into a nuke river since we accepted their nukes in exchange for such empty promises.
Let ehe Russians have it.
***You may be saying more than a mouthful there. Supposing that the Ukes DO blow up Moscow with a suitcase nuke and Putler survives it, you’ll be singing a different tune about what we shoulda done when we had the chance.
“Your side seems incapable of defending its positions without throwing around outlandish insults”
You literally asked if his mother was a whore in your deleted post #72.
“and simply jump up & down screaming rather than answering points rationally”
Just comparing and contrasting the tone of his posts with yours, you’re the one who comes off as irrational, to be quite frank.
After all, you kept saying the Budapest Memorandum was a treaty even after quite a few posters pointed out to you (quite rightly) that it technically and legally *isn’t a treaty.*
Do you ever answer posts with rational basis? Or is it always just one more insult with you?
“Why are they bringing this up? Do they want to give Ukraine thousands of Western warheads to make up for it?”
You’ve solved the problem!!
Kevmo: “Your side seems incapable of defending its positions without throwing around outlandish insults”
US7: You literally asked if his mother was a whore in your deleted post #72.
***Oh, well that’s kind of interesting. That was the question asked in the video of ‘be nice until it’s time to not be nice’ in Roadhouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTh5JzRziHE
Kevmo: “and simply jump up & down screaming rather than answering points rationally”
US7: Just comparing and contrasting the tone of his posts with yours, you’re the one who comes off as irrational, to be quite frank.
***The video said to be nice until it’s time to not be nice. That’s what the Ukes are gonna do with their Nukes.
After all, you kept saying the Budapest Memorandum was a treaty even after quite a few posters pointed out to you (quite rightly) that it technically and legally *isn’t a treaty.*
***Now hold on a second. I count 68 entries for the word ‘treaty’. I did NOT “keep saying it’s a treaty after quite a few said otherwise...” You want us to be that nitpicky about a word, then let’s be that nitpicky about a word, because it’s a signed memorandum on Security Assurances that Ukraine HONORED.
You guys keep telling others to go fight Russians in the Ukraine, so now it’s my turn for you to go and hop on a plane to tell the Ukes that it never was a treaty, it was as violable as their own toilet paper, so they’re free to build all the beautiful nukes they want and can blow the hell out of Russians with them because, after all, that’s what we did to Japan.
You don’t want me to call it a treaty then I won’t call it a treaty. But the consequences of treating it as not a treaty could be a nukular plume with Vlad the Impaler ready to exact revenge on the west. You ready for that?
If that’s true, then why didn’t they do it after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014?
***They were roadhousing [watch the video elsewhere on this thread]. It was time to be nice until it’s time to not be nice, followed perhaps by a nukular cloud and people like you wondering why they didn’t just “take their turn to get a beating” like the prosecutor said Kyle was supposed to do.
So here is where you called it out as “not a treaty”. The Ukes will have learned that by now. America is not to be trusted.
I get the sense the Israelis have known this for a long time.
I know Saddam figured it out, too late. He checked in with George W, promptly invaded Kuwait, and found out we could not be trusted.
The Ukes had about a third of Russia’s nukes. It seems very likely they’ll be building upon their learnings about “not treaties” and building their own Nukes as fast as the A-Bomb kid designed his. That’s what I’d be doing in their shoes.
But by all means, we shouldn’t be calling it a “treaty”. Someone might get upset.
That there “non-treaty” was never binding, so if the Ukes kept some Nukes, they never would have violated that “non-treaty” in the first place. Sumthin to keep in mind.
But by all means, we shouldn’t be calling that a treaty.
yes, your side
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4043602/posts?page=225#225
but hey, my one step over the line got deleted, so there’s that
“Yes, your side”
- I don’t know why you’re linking to a thread I haven’t posted anything in, as if that’s somehow relevant to the current discussion. Reread my comment: I didn’t mention “sides.” I spoke specifically about *your* posts and those by Alberta’s Child. Of the two, you come off as less rational. That’s it.
“Now hold on a second. I count 68 entries for the word ‘treaty’. I did NOT “keep saying it’s a treaty after quite a few said otherwise...” You want us to be that nitpicky about a word, then let’s be that nitpicky about a word, because it’s a signed memorandum on Security Assurances that Ukraine HONORED.”
- Firstly, most mentions of the word ‘treaty’ in this thread (other than those used by you in reference to the Memorandum, and those by people telling you it’s not a treaty) was in reference to *actual treaties* like the Nonproliferation Treaty, START, or the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997 (which expired in 2019). I also count at least one reference of Conservapedia calling the Budapest Memorandum a treaty, which it isn’t. Don’t confuse the Budapest Memo with other treaties.
Secondly, I can *see* your posts after I and others told you that the Budapest Memo legally isn’t a treaty, where you still refer to it as a treaty.
Thirdly, that Ukraine could be said to have “honored” the Budapest Memorandum (as far as Section 3 goes in terms of economic coercion) is at the very least *debatable* in light of how groups like the International Monetary Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama Administration, and so forth helped foment a revolution that ousted former Ukrainian President Yanukovych in 2014.
“You guys keep telling others to go fight Russians in the Ukraine”
-I’ve encouraged no one to go over to fight for either Ukraine or Russia. This should be kept to the level of a regional conflict; getting America involved and escalating matters is a bad idea (especially in light of our military’s recent track record).
“so now it’s my turn for you to go and hop on a plane to tell the Ukes that it never was a treaty, it was as violable as their own toilet paper”
- Why should I? They’re capable of reading, aren’t they? It’s not like they need an American to explain things to them, or do you think that lowly of their intelligence.
“so they’re free to build all the beautiful nukes they want and can blow the hell out of Russians with them because, after all, that’s what we did to Japan.”
- The point of nuclear deterrence is to keep the fighting from occurring *before it starts*; but the fighting has already begun, so that card’s gone (and as someone else said, if the Ukrainians had any nuclear weapon capacity, they would have spoken up about it by now). I personally don’t think the Ukrainians should have given up their nuclear stockpile in 1994, but I also don’t know if they legitimately would have had the political capital back then to keep them. However, you’re the one saying the Ukranians should use a suitcase bomb to *blow up Moscow*, which would **guarantee escalation to World War III and nuclear warfare**.
To say that’s ***insane*** is putting it mildly.
P.S. Comparing the Ukraine to Kyle Rittenhouse is a pretty hot take. (And a hyperbolic one at that.)
You called the Budapest Memo a treaty in post 65 *and* post 67 after AC, dforest, Noble, and dvwjr pointed out in earlier posts that it either wasn’t a treaty legally, or that it hadn’t been ratified by Congress (which is required for it to be a treaty).
“America is not to be trusted.”
-We burned that bridge years ago. Where have you been?
“But by all means, we shouldn’t be calling it a “treaty”. Someone might get upset.”
- Not so much being upset as you being insistent on a matter after several other people correctly contradicted you. After my post 69, you finally seemed to stop treating the Memo as though it was a legally-binding treaty.
“yes... your side”
- Why do you keep linking to comments I’ve had no interaction with? I can’t speak for anyone else but myself. This sort of tribalistic “gotcha game” you’re playing is just sheer silliness.
You shouldn’t post while intoxicated. Try taking a kickboxing class or something.
- I don’t know why you’re linking to a thread I haven’t posted anything in,
***The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread. He’s on your side. I didn’t even post on THAT thread. But naturally, my post was removed when there is concrete evidence of harassment.
as if that’s somehow relevant to the current discussion.
***It’s current. It comes from your side.
Reread my comment: I didn’t mention “sides.”
***I did. You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.
I spoke specifically about *your* posts and those by Alberta’s Child. Of the two, you come off as less rational. That’s it.
***Sure, I get it. I’m dealing with a cross-thread harassment troll at the same time I’m dealing with you guys and included a snide remark without attributing it to the video. That’s not a lack of rationality, it’s a simple mistake. But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.
Kevmo: “Now hold on a second. I count 68 entries for the word ‘treaty’. I did NOT “keep saying it’s a treaty after quite a few said otherwise...” You want us to be that nitpicky about a word, then let’s be that nitpicky about a word, because it’s a signed memorandum on Security Assurances that Ukraine HONORED.”
US7- Firstly, most mentions of the word ‘treaty’ in this thread (other than those used by you in reference to the Memorandum, and those by people telling you it’s not a treaty) was in reference to *actual treaties* like the Nonproliferation Treaty, START, or the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997 (which expired in 2019).
***Precisely. The CONTEXT of you calling me out on the word ‘treaty’ was harassment surrounded by nitpickiness.
I also count at least one reference of Conservapedia calling the Budapest Memorandum a treaty, which it isn’t.
***SO how is it ‘irrational’ for me to call it a treaty? Especially in the midst of such context? It’s not.
Don’t confuse the Budapest Memo with other treaties.
***Don’t call someone irrational when your side is harassing them. And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Secondly, I can *see* your posts after I and others told you that the Budapest Memo legally isn’t a treaty, where you still refer to it as a treaty.
***Yes but i didn’t see YOURS until I commented on it. Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?
Thirdly, that Ukraine could be said to have “honored” the Budapest Memorandum (as far as Section 3 goes in terms of economic coercion)
***Uhh, they HONORED it by giving up NUKEs which can kill tens of millions of people but you seem to wanna focus on nitpicky items.
is at the very least *debatable* in light of how groups like the International Monetary Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama Administration,
***Uhhh, how about that there organization that monitors nuclear proliferation? Isn’t it more important to consider sumthin that could kill tens of millions of souls than some stupid monetary fund?
and so forth helped foment a revolution that ousted former Ukrainian President Yanukovych in 2014.
***Red herring, as far as I can tell. What was the bearing with respect to this “non treaty”? It was a violation, that’s what it was.
“You guys keep telling others to go fight Russians in the Ukraine”
-I’ve encouraged no one to go over to fight for either Ukraine or Russia.
***good to know, but I said “you guys” so I’m including your cohort you have surrounded yourself with.
This should be kept to the level of a regional conflict;
***Is that what the ‘nontreaty’ says? Honor Ukrainian borders, that kind of thing? The Ukes held up tens of millions of nonregional lives in high regard when they honored the provisions of this nontreaty, so should we.
getting America involved and escalating matters
***America signed this nonbinding nontreaty. And the consequences of treating it in this manner could result in nuclear plumes. America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.
is a bad idea (especially in light of our military’s recent track record).
***You’re talking about shoulds, and so am I. Since this is not a treaty, it was never binding, then the Ukes are free to pursue a nuke defense strategy and they are defending their country in an existential war. Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?
“so now it’s my turn for you to go and hop on a plane to tell the Ukes that it never was a treaty, it was as violable as their own toilet paper”
- Why should I?
***Okay, then I’ll change it to “you all”
They’re capable of reading, aren’t they? It’s not like they need an American to explain things to them,
***Well then, if it’s not compelling enough for you all to prevent nuke plumes then perhaps I’ll just consider for myself how compelling it is to fight Russians.
or do you think that lowly of their intelligence.
***Or do you think that lowly of tens of millions of lost souls in a nukular plume?
“so they’re free to build all the beautiful nukes they want and can blow the hell out of Russians with them because, after all, that’s what we did to Japan.”
- The point of nuclear deterrence is to keep the fighting from occurring *before it starts*;
***True enough, and well said. But when you don’t have enough time, you do what you can with what you have.
but the fighting has already begun, so that card’s gone
***It’s conventional right now. It could turn nukular with a truck bomb in a matter of weeks. Hopefully the Ukes give the Russians a chance to evacuate Ukraine in a reasonable timeframe but since it aint a ‘treaty’ they can do whatever the hell they want, right?
(and as someone else said, if the Ukrainians had any nuclear weapon capacity, they would have spoken up about it by now).
***They probably don’t. But if the A-Bomb kid could design a bomb in a few weeks, so could the Ukes.
I personally don’t think the Ukrainians should have given up their nuclear stockpile in 1994, but I also don’t know if they legitimately would have had the political capital back then to keep them.
***I’m reasonably certain they WISH they had kept some. There’s no telling at this point.
However, you’re the one saying the Ukranians should
***Should? Well, that’s a bit stronger than I would promote. I’d say they’re well within their rights to do so, since guys like you are saying they have no rights under that there non-treaty.
use a suitcase bomb to *blow up Moscow*, which would **guarantee escalation to World War III and nuclear warfare**.
***Well, golly gee gosh. You’re finally seeing the issue here. It only took 5 or 6 iterations.
To say that’s ***insane*** is putting it mildly.
***NOW are ya gonna consider that treating this thing like it’s just toilet paper to send down the river we sold the Ukes is not a very pretty idear?
P.S. Comparing the Ukraine to Kyle Rittenhouse is a pretty hot take. (And a hyperbolic one at that.)
***Not so hot, because it is true. Nukes are borderline insanity no matter how you approach it, that’s why they use the acronym MAD.
Your side.
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.