[Kevmo]

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?

[Alberta's Child]

If it was never ratified by the Senate then it isn’t a treaty. This is no subtle distinction, either. If it isn’t a treaty then the U.S. government can’t even consider it legally binding on U.S. citizens.

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?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

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.”