Posted on 03/22/2022 5:32:04 PM PDT by Conservat1
You asked a question. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the answer to the question is Yes, I asked - and I asked how do we do that?
And so the Budapest Accord did accomplish at a minimum that one goal - pull nuclear weapons out of Ukraine. And that was a good thing. I loathe to go to Wikipedia but it gives an initial basic analysis of the Budapest Accord as follows:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][26] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[25] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[26] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[27] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security guarantees that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[28] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[29]
There are also some viewpoints in the Analysis section that assert that the Accord is an international treaty. That may be, but what matters for the US is that the treaty if ratified by the Senate.
If you know of a site that offers a fair-handed analysis of the Accord, please pass along.
The Budapest Accord seems to be as noted not legally binding on the US. If that is the case, the US is not obligated to act via overt military action to defend Ukraine. If the Budapest Accord was ratified by the Senate that would be a different situation. We don't.
So at the very least, it seems problematic if the US could use the Accord to justify US overt military action to defend Ukraine.
what matters for the US is that the treaty if ratified by the Senate.
***Then we should never have worked with them to remove those nukes. We sold them down the river, offering soothing words in exchange.
If you know of a site that offers a fair-handed analysis of the Accord, please pass along.
***We are as fair as any other site. Think for yourself.
The Budapest Accord seems to be as noted not legally binding on the US. If that is the case, the US is not obligated to act via overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***That’s such pure bullshiite. We’re pushing the Ukes down a Nuke path by betraying them. The Agreement seems to be “legally binding” enough to allow 2 INVASIONS of their territory? Complete bullshiite. Once they get their own nukes in this existential war, there is no agreement or any reason why they shouldn’t vaporize several million Russians. All because pantywaist appeasers want to find loopholes in an agreement they were more than willing to accept the benefits of.
If the Budapest Accord was ratified by the Senate that would be a different situation. We don’t.
***Hey, when Pootypoot is looking at a nuke plume of one of his cities and the Ukes are taking credit for it, he will no doubt be blaming the US. And it will be much our own fault because if we had never removed those nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.
So at the very least, it seems problematic if the US could use the Accord to justify US overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***The Russians are Overtly IGNORING the sovereignty and borders provisions of that Agreement by INVADING the country twice. It appears all they have to do is not call it an invasion. So all we need to do is intervene and not call it an intervention or invasion. Just call it a military operation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case the sauce prevents a country from getting backed into an existential nuke corner.
Perhaps. And that is why this should have been ratified by the Senate. That’s why treaties are uniquely hard to ratify. Because they bind the US, often in the toughest of circumstances. The US did take the easy out, as did Russia, and Ukraine.
We are as fair as any other site. Think for yourself.
I certainly do think for myself. I take multiple, differing viewpoints and consider them.
That’s such pure bullshiite. We’re pushing the Ukes down a Nuke path by betraying them. The Agreement seems to be “legally binding” enough to allow 2 INVASIONS of their territory? Complete bullshiite. Once they get their own nukes in this existential war, there is no agreement or any reason why they shouldn’t vaporize several million Russians. All because pantywaist appeasers want to find loopholes in an agreement they were more than willing to accept the benefits of.
See my previous responses. There’s a reason why the Budapest Accord was not ratified by the Senate - it would not have been ratified. So, all parties need to operate going forward with the understanding that when the going gets tough, any one of the parties may decide that their own interests are so important that they may need to act differently.
Hey, when Pootypoot is looking at a nuke plume of one of his cities and the Ukes are taking credit for it, he will no doubt be blaming the US. And it will be much our own fault because if we had never removed those nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.
Undoubtedly correct. And also correct is that all parties took the easy way out, and are now sowing that decision.
The Russians are Overtly IGNORING the sovereignty and borders provisions of that Agreement by INVADING the country twice. It appears all they have to do is not call it an invasion. So all we need to do is intervene and not call it an intervention or invasion. Just call it a military operation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case the sauce prevents a country from getting backed into an existential nuke corner.
To me, this is not “if Russia can do it, so can we”. This is - “what is the US national security interest?” Thus far, I don’t see the compelling interest. You’re suggesting we should do so because what happens if the Ukraine gets nuclear weapons? Yes? No? We could be concerned about that for any number of countries.
I do agree with your contention that Ukraine should be able to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Have no problem with that. Russia will never allow that is my prediction, but if they want to, that’s their decision.
Perhaps. And that is why this should have been ratified by the Senate
***By saying it shoulda been ratified, you acknowledge we had a vested national interest in removing those nukes. The Ukes fracked up. Royally.
There’s a reason why the Budapest Accord was not ratified by the Senate - it would not have been ratified.
***Circular reasoning.
So, all parties need to operate going forward with the understanding that when the going gets tough, any one of the parties may decide that their own interests are so important that they may need to act differently.
***The Ukes are being backed into a Nuke corner. We acted a certain way when we were in our existential war, we should expect them to act in a similar fashion. It is in our nation’s best interest not to push this country into a nuke corner — keep it conventional.
To me, this is not “if Russia can do it, so can we”. This is - “what is the US national security interest?” Thus far, I don’t see the compelling interest.
***It is in the US national security interest that the Ukes don’t set off suitcase nukes in a Russian city. That doesn’t compel you?
You’re suggesting we should do so because what happens if the Ukraine gets nuclear weapons? Yes? No?
***I am saying that if I were in their shoes, I’d be building nukes. We should look at this conflagration with that as a perspective. Sometimes that perspective goes down the path of examining the hypothetical of “if they blow the frack out of some Russian city”, so yes, a partial answer to your question is yes.
We could be concerned about that for any number of countries.
***How many are we working on right now? We are basically HANDING a nuke program to the Iranians. Norks? Trying to stop them. South Africa? We encouraged them to get rid of theirs — hint: they also lost THEIR sovereignty. That’s most of the list as far as I can tell. We never signed anything close to the Budapest Agreement with them, other than South Africa. Modern countries now know: Nukes mean Sovereignty.
they did give up claim to the nukes left behind after the Soviet Union split up.
***And they have been rewarded with 2 invasions. That memorandum is obviously null and void.
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.
Certificate of registration of the Memorandum on security assurances with the United Nations Secretariat, 2 October 2014.
Ukraine Documents pertaining to Ukranian accession to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 15 documents from December 11, 1992 to July 27, 1993.
A null and void agreement provides nothing to anybody.
The Budapest Memorandum on security assurances never provided a promise of military assistance. You just can't get over that fact, even thought it is the unanimous opinion of the parties, and it is clear from the actual text which makes you choke.
No. 52241
____Ukraine, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.
Entry into force: 5 December 1994 by signature
Authentic texts: English, Russian and Ukranian
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014
Pursuant to the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances, they had a commitment that their situation would be brought before the UN Security Council.
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 NonProliferation 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.
They are entitled to UN Security Council consideration. There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and start WW3 to save them.
Cyber-Security: The Threats from Russia and the Middle East, Ferry de Kerckove, CGAI Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, (2019), at 2-3: (footnotes omitted)
On the latter point, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (not “guarantees”), although considered an important landmark, had a single purpose: to convince Ukraine to abandon its nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the signatories to provide it with support: “1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The memorandum, although formally signed, is not a treaty. Indeed, “Although signatories ‘reaffirm their commitment’ to Ukraine in many passages, the memorandum requires them to do almost nothing concrete, in the event that Ukraine’s sovereignty – territorial or political – is violated. There aren’t any hard enforcement mechanisms.” Ukraine is the subject of the memorandum, rather than a full participant. Furthermore, according to Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum, “the form and content of the Memorandum ... show that, unfortunately, the Budapest talks on giving Ukraine security guarantees did not eventually result in a comprehensive international agreement that creates an adequate special international mechanism to protect our national security.”
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
[excerpt]
Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.
Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation.
Ukraine was REFUSED a guarantee of military assistance. NATO REFUSED to admit Ukraine as a member state BECAUSE it would have obligated the member states to come to the military assistance of Ukraine. NATO would not trust Ukraine not to provoke a war.
NATO members have REFUSED to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
The United States has REFUSED to provide requested MIG fighter jets to Ukraine, even though Poland volunteered to provide, free of charge, all their MIGS to the United States if the United States wanted them.
NATO has REFUSED to establish and enforce a No Fly Zone requested by Ukraine.
Nobody has an obligation to come to the military assistance of Ukraine. Ukraine has been refused boots on the ground, fighter jets, and a no fly zone. There is no foreseeable possibility that they will be provided with nuclear bombs, the equipment or material to make nuclear bombs, or missiles for the delivery of nuclear bombs.
Ukraine does not have nuclear bombs or a delivery system. Nobody has used nuclear weapons in the current conflict. It is not a nuclear conflict.
Nations claiming non-belligerent neutral status have an obligation to not provide military equipment to any belligerent party. Belligerent parties are legitimate targets of acts of war. Parties violating the laws of neutrality become a belligerent party to the war at the discretion of the aggrieved belligerent party. Russia has declared that anyone providing fighter jets to Ukraine will be considered a party to the war. On offer of MIGs from Poland, free of charge, the United States declined to receive them or provide them to Ukraine. An emergency special session of NATO did not result in sending troops or aircraft to Ukraine. The United Nations has not authorized the use of force against Russia.
Nobody is obligated to offer their services to the Ukranian Foreign Legion, but you are invited to do so. In any case, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine recruiters are just waiting on warriors such as you.
But you want to send other people to a war that is not ours to fight.
You just can’t get over that fact,
***No, dude, it is YOUR INTERPRETATION. You can repeat the dog vomit argument all ya want, it does not change it. So when those Ukes blow up a Russian city with their new nukes, people will be looking to folks like you in askance about your bullshiite interpretation. It’s as simple as an assurance in exchange for nukes. The assurance has been worthless, the agreement has led to 2 invasions from Russia, so the agreement is a piece of shiite. Your interpretation of it could lead to tens of millions of lost Russian lives and the direct risk of hundreds or billions of lives in a nuke war. All because you folks are pantywaist appeasing twits.
Re: 127 - Good grief, grow up with the name calling. People will hold different viewpoints than you.
Re: 125 - We are never going to agree on this issue of US national security interest. I understand your reasoning but don’t agree with it.
That’s fine. I do appreciate you explaining itbin detail.
I gave up on the whole concept of thinking that name calling is wrong when I realized that Jesus used the tactic, calling false teachers of His day ‘vipers’, ‘unmarked tombs’, and ‘sons of Satan’.
Jesus did it, so can I. When the stakes are high enough. And the stakes are nuclear in this case, son of Satan.
Grow up.
Good luck.
Just keep in mind that people who thought like you, at the time of that agreement, they DID agree with me.
It’s like the guy who sells a car, delivers it on the promise of $5k from the buyer. The buyer decides the terms of the agreement aren’t so solid, so he keeps his $5k but drives the car. Suqs to be you, he thinks.
But then the seller has a Mafiosa friend who owes him a favor. The mafia dude hears about the deal and breaks his legs, returns the car, AND the $5k, and takes your favorite hall lamp as interest. Suqs to be you, the mafia dude thinks.
In that analogy, both sides had an agreement. One side honored it, the other side didn’t. Think about the consequences of not honoring the agreement — does the niggling weasel consider that honoring the agreement was in his best interest? Did he have disdain for the agreement while he was driving the car with $5k in his pocket?
Jesus sees it differently than you. Who do ya think has more authority? Best of luck with your weasel attitude, Mr. Unmarked Tomb.
Kevmo: All because you folks are pantywaist appeasing twits.
Fury: Good grief, grow up with the name calling. People will hold different viewpoints than you.
***Uhh, that guy really IS a pantywaist appeasing twit.
You just can’t get over that fact,
***No, dude, it is YOUR INTERPRETATION. You can repeat the dog vomit argument all ya want,
Ok, as you desire. Choke on it. You can't rebut anything; all you can do is throw one of your tiny fisted tantrums. I do not post your sort of vapid crap, I link, cite and quote the actual Memorandum and other sources, including Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum:
“the form and content of the Memorandum ... show that, unfortunately, the Budapest talks on giving Ukraine security guarantees did not eventually result in a comprehensive international agreement that creates an adequate special international mechanism to protect our national security.”
According to V. Vasylenko, “Ukraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world.”
Ukraine's forgotten security guarantee: The Budapest Memorandum
DW News [German]
Date 05.12.2014
[Excerpts]
Twenty years ago, the Budapest Memorandum marked the end of many years of negotiations between the successor states of the Soviet Union and leading Western nuclear powers. Ukraine had a special place in the talks.After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the eastern European country inherited 176 strategic and more than 2,500 tactical nuclear missiles. Ukraine at that point had the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world after the United States and Russia.
But Leonid Kravchuk, then the president of Ukraine, told DW that was only formally the case. De facto, Kyiv was powerless.
"All the control systems were in Russia. The so-called black suitcase with the start button, that was with Russian president Boris Yeltsin."
Western pressure
Ukraine could have kept the nuclear weapons, but the price would have been enormous, Kravchuk says. Though the carrier rockets were manufactured in the southern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk, the nuclear warheads were not. It would have been too expensive for Ukraine to manufacture and maintain them on its own.
"It would have cost us $65 billion (53 billion euros), and the state coffers were empty," Kravchuk said.
Additionally, the West threatened Ukraine with isolation since the missiles were supposedly aimed at the United States. Therefore, "the only possible decision" was to give up the weapons, according to Kravchuk.
[...]
"Nowhere does it say that if a country violates this memorandum, that the others will attack militarily," said Gerhard Simon, Eastern Europe expert at the University of Cologne.
German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, telling DW, "The agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written."
Perhaps Ukraine has a right to be peeved that the Memorandum is not worth the paper on which it was written and nowhere does it say that if a country violates the memorandum that others will attack militarily. However, the document does not say what it does not say, and nobody is hurrying to attack militarily. The memorandum creates no such obligation, except in your vivid imagination.
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.
Certificate of registration of the Memorandum on security assurances with the United Nations Secretariat, 2 October 2014.
Ukraine Documents pertaining to Ukranian accession to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 15 documents from December 11, 1992 to July 27, 1993.
A null and void agreement provides nothing to anybody.
The Budapest Memorandum on security assurances never provided a promise of military assistance. You just can't get over that fact, even though it is the unanimous opinion of the parties, and it is clear from the actual text which makes you choke.
No. 52241
____Ukraine, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.
Entry into force: 5 December 1994 by signature
Authentic texts: English, Russian and Ukranian
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014
Pursuant to the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances, they had a commitment that their situation would be brought before the UN Security Council.
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 NonProliferation 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.
They are entitled to UN Security Council consideration. There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and start WW3 to save them.
Cyber-Security: The Threats from Russia and the Middle East, Ferry de Kerckove, CGAI Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, (2019), at 2-3: (footnotes omitted)
On the latter point, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (not “guarantees”), although considered an important landmark, had a single purpose: to convince Ukraine to abandon its nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the signatories to provide it with support: “1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The memorandum, although formally signed, is not a treaty. Indeed, “Although signatories ‘reaffirm their commitment’ to Ukraine in many passages, the memorandum requires them to do almost nothing concrete, in the event that Ukraine’s sovereignty – territorial or political – is violated. There aren’t any hard enforcement mechanisms.” Ukraine is the subject of the memorandum, rather than a full participant. Furthermore, according to Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum, “the form and content of the Memorandum ... show that, unfortunately, the Budapest talks on giving Ukraine security guarantees did not eventually result in a comprehensive international agreement that creates an adequate special international mechanism to protect our national security.”
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
[excerpt]
Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.
Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation.
Ukraine was REFUSED a guarantee of military assistance. NATO REFUSED to admit Ukraine as a member state BECAUSE it would have obligated the member states to come to the military assistance of Ukraine. NATO would not trust Ukraine not to provoke a war.
NATO members have REFUSED to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
The United States has REFUSED to provide requested MIG fighter jets to Ukraine, even though Poland volunteered to provide, free of charge, all their MIGS to the United States if the United States wanted them.
NATO has REFUSED to establish and enforce a No Fly Zone requested by Ukraine.
Nobody has an obligation to come to the military assistance of Ukraine. Ukraine has been refused boots on the ground, fighter jets, and a no fly zone. There is no foreseeable possibility that they will be provided with nuclear bombs, the equipment or material to make nuclear bombs, or missiles for the delivery of nuclear bombs.
Ukraine does not have nuclear bombs or a delivery system. Nobody has used nuclear weapons in the current conflict. It is not a nuclear conflict.
Nations claiming non-belligerent neutral status have an obligation to not provide military equipment to any belligerent party. Belligerent parties are legitimate targets of acts of war. Parties violating the laws of neutrality become a belligerent party to the war at the discretion of the aggrieved belligerent party. Russia has declared that anyone providing fighter jets to Ukraine will be considered a party to the war. On offer of MIGs from Poland, free of charge, the United States declined to receive them or provide them to Ukraine. An emergency special session of NATO did not result in sending troops or aircraft to Ukraine. The United Nations has not authorized the use of force against Russia.
Nobody is obligated to offer their services to the Ukranian Foreign Legion, but you are invited to do so. In any case, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine recruiters are just waiting on warriors such as you.
But you want to send other people to a war that is not ours to fight.
Choke on it.
***You even acknowledge that your post is a dog-returning-to-its-vomit argument.
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.