Posted on 06/21/2024 11:45:07 AM PDT by JonPreston
So much for this being about NATO expansion. It is about Russia seizing Ukrainian land and always has been; everything else has only been a smokescreen. And you seem to be OK with that. Put aside Crimea and Donbas, what justification does Russia have for seizing Kherson and Zaporizhzia? And please, do not quote me those bogus referenda.
But it’s worth noting that the ONLY land they would have given up, until just over 2 years ago, was Crimea - and even that would have been open to future negotiations.
You are forgetting Donbas, which Russia seized in 2014 under the cover of local militias. The irony is that if Putin had been satisfied with Crimea and those parts of Donbas that he had already controlled he could have had it all with a response of nothing more than a strongly written letter. But he had to have more land and wanted to topple the government and install his own. This is why we have this war, not NATO expansion. Putin never accepted Ukraine as a real country and he thought that he had his opportunity with a weak Biden.
educe its military - that’s life, if you want to not have the Russian military occupying your cities, then don’t pose a threat to Russia.
Ukraine never threatened Russia. It is ridiculous to think so. Russia has been the only threat here and drove Ukraine, like the other eastern European countries, to seek NATO protection. NATO was not seeking to expand in the east; the eastern European countries desired NATO membership to protect themselves from Russia. Russian actions have shown that that desire was justifies. I am afraid that it has been the bear that has been doing the poking.
“So much for this being about NATO expansion.”
Yep, the Neocons got spanked and SPANKED BADLY by Russia, they will not be expanding NATO in Ukraine, EVER.
This was never about NATO expansion. Rather, it has been about Russian expansion. Russia coveted Ukrainian land and thought that with a weak Biden they could grab it and bring Ukraine under Russian subjugation. All the talk about NATO expansion is just subterfuge to justify Russia’s invasion. Russia started this war, not some faceless Neocons. Do not let your hatred of the Neocons, Soros, NWO, etc. cloud your thinking to justify what is simply Putin’s attempt to reassert control over what he considers a breakaway Russian province.
“This was never about NATO expansion.”
Well then your problem is with FARAGE and TRUMP, so I suggest that you contact them and tell them that they’re wrong.
I’m just the messenger here.
Treaties in Force uses the term “treaty” in the generic sense as defined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that is, an international agreement “governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” The term “treaty” as a matter of U.S. constitutional law denotes international agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate in accordance with Article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. In addition to such “treaties”, this publication covers international agreements in force that have been concluded by the Executive (a) pursuant to or in accordance with existing legislation or a prior treaty; (b) subject to congressional approval or implementation, and/or (c) under and in accordance with the President’s constitutional powers.
NATO has been seeking a cause for existence for a long time
Perhaps you think that in the United States, your interpretation of the introduction of a State Department document supersedes the United States Constitution. If so, you are welcome to your opinion.
As you have quoted from the introduction, perhaps you would like to inspect the entire 570 pages and find where, in listing treaties and agreements in force, it makes the slightest reference to the Budapest Agreement of 5 December 1994, registered with the United Nations by Ukraine 2 October 2014. (Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine).
I guess you accidentally on purpose failed to notice the absence of your ballyhooed Budapest Memorandum, which you have elevated to an enforceable treaty, still in effect.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Minsk Accords which supersede the Budapest Memorandum.
Is it your informed opinion that the United States has merely blown off its responsibilities pursuant to an enforceable treaty?
What do you perceive to be the legal responsibilities of the United States pursuant to the purported legally enforceable treaty?
Here is the link, title and foreward of what you were quoting from:
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf
United States Department of StateTreaties in Force
A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2020
This publication lists treaties and other international agreements of the United States on record in the Department of State on January 1, 2020, which had not expired by their own terms or which had not been denounced by the parties, replaced, superseded by other agreements, or otherwise definitely terminated.
Compiled by the Treaty Affairs Staff, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
- - - - -
Foreword at 1
ArrangementTreaties in Force is arranged in two sections. Section 1 includes bilateral treaties and other international agreements listed by country or other international entity with subject headings under each entry. Arrangements with territorial possessions of a country appear at the end of the entry for that country. In some cases, treaties and international agreements applicable to a territory prior to its independence are included in the entry for that country on the basis of its assumption of treaty obligations upon becoming independent, as noted at the beginning of the entry for that country. For convenience, some treaties and agreements concluded with countries whose name or statehood status has changed continue to be listed under the name in use at the time the agreement was concluded, if the title of the treaty or agreement has not been formally amended.
Section 2 lists multilateral treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, arranged by subject. The depositary is the authoritative source for a current list of parties and information on other matters concerning the status of the agreement, and status information often changes. Information is provided on the depositary for the agreement in question, and contact information, including an Internet site is provided for the depositary where available.
Scope
Treaties in Force uses the term “treaty” in the generic sense as defined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that is, an international agreement “governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” The term “treaty” as a matter of U.S. constitutional law denotes international agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate in accordance with Article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. In addition to such “treaties”, this publication covers international agreements in force that have been concluded by the Executive (a) pursuant to or in accordance with existing legislation or a prior treaty; (b) subject to congressional approval or implementation, and/or (c) under and in accordance with the President’s constitutional powers.
Treaties in Force includes those treaties and other international agreements entered into by the United States which, as of the specified date, had not expired by their own terms, been denounced by the parties, replaced or superseded by other agreements, or otherwise definitely terminated. Certain agreements, particularly those concerned with World War II and the immediate postwar period, which contain continuing provisions or which have not been clearly terminated in their entirety are included even though operations under the agreements may have ceased. Additionally, certain foreign assistance and grant agreements under which principle operations have concluded but which have not been terminated, have been omitted. While all efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, the presence or absence of a particular agreement, as well as the details cited regarding a listed agreement, should not be regarded as determinative of the status of the agreement. Some categories of agreements, such as those implementing certain other agreements, are deliberately omitted from this publication even though they constitute binding international agreements. If there is a question about the status or details of a particular agreement, the text of the agreement itself always should be consulted in the first instance. Please bring any suspected errors or omissions to the attention of the Office of Treaty Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.
Here is the multilanguage Budapest Memorandum as registered by Ukraine at the United Nations, 2 October 2014.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Volume 3007, I-52241No. 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 Ukrainian
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014
As for the US, I believe that national interest and national honor both favor a full measure of help to Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression. I do not believe that we made a legally binding commitment to render such assistance. Out of folly and moral squalor, the Biden administration failed to make an effective case and to make honest compromises with the GOP on US border and immigration issues in order to secure support for aid to Ukraine.
We have good cause to pity the US in having Biden as president and to pity Ukraine in having to rely on him for help.
YEAH..! And if you don't believe that, I'll hit you with my PURSE..!!
You seem to have several points, but the one I find most significant is an apparent acceptance of my contention that Russia make binding commitments not to threaten or use force against Ukraine and to respect its territory and political autonomy. Is this surmise correct?
You seem to have severe difficulty with reading comprehension. Is this surmise correct?
I suggest you reread my #116. I am not sure how to express myself more clearly.
In international law, a memorandum of understanding that is intended to be binding is considered binding and is considered to be a treaty even if it has a less compelling status under American domestic law than a treaty approved by Congress.Complete, total, utter b.s.
There is no such thing as a binding Memorandum. It is a Memorandum because it was not intended to be a binding treaty. Your fictional alternative version of "International Law" does not exist beyond your imagination.
As the events of the past two years verifies, absolutely nobody found anything about the Budapest Memorandum as binding them to provide Ukraine with boots on the ground military aid.
The operative clause of what action was assured, as I quoted at #113, is what you desperately seek to avoid:
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.The text states what "assurances" were given. What was assured was that any matter of aggression would be referred to the UN Security Council. That happened. No surprise there, Russia held a veto on any possible action by the UN Security Council, and everyone knew that fact when the Budapest Memorandum was signed.
There were other memoranda and treaties that Russia signed and public declarations that Russia would not use or threaten force against Ukraine. The essential point is that because those pledges were broken, no one with a lick of sense trusts promises now from Putin and Russia.The Minsk Accords was a binding treaty. That Ukraine never intended to fufill its obligations made them no less binding. That Angela Merkel openly stated that the Minsk Accords were simply a device used to gain time to rearm and reinforce Ukraine simply underscored the fact that a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine is worthless.
You have yet to come up with a treaty or any actual statement of any authority that a Memorandum is as binding as a treaty. Such statements that it is not binding as a treaty are plentiful.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATIONUkraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance
FACT SHEETS & BRIEFS
Last Reviewed:
February 2022Contact: Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107
[EXCERPT]
1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security 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. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force.
The quote states, in relevant part, of the Budapest Memorandum, "A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords...." The Budapest Memorandum was a POLITICAL agreement, not a binding LEGAL agreement. But what of those "principles of the Helsinki Accords?"
https://www.britannica.com/event/Helsinki-Accords
[excerpt]
The Helsinki Accords were primarily an effort to reduce tension between the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their common acceptance of the post-World War II status quo in Europe. The accords were signed by all the countries of Europe (except Albania, which became a signatory in September 1991) and by the United States and Canada. The agreement recognized the inviolability of the post-World War II frontiers in Europe and pledged the 35 signatory nations to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic, scientific, humanitarian, and other areas. The Helsinki Accords are nonbinding and do not have treaty status.As with the Budapest Memorandum, the Helsinki Accords were a NONBINDING statement of political intent and did not have treaty status.
And my #167.
Had you not chosen to willfully and deliberately withhold the link and title of the quoted document, I might have found your misrepresentation to be innocent rather than deliberate b.s.Perhaps you think that in the United States, your interpretation of the introduction of a State Department document supersedes the United States Constitution. If so, you are welcome to your opinion.
As you have quoted from the introduction, perhaps you would like to inspect the entire 570 pages and find where, in listing treaties and agreements in force, it makes the slightest reference to the Budapest Agreement of 5 December 1994, registered with the United Nations by Ukraine 2 October 2014. (Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine).
I guess you accidentally on purpose failed to notice the absence of your ballyhooed Budapest Memorandum, which you have elevated to an enforceable treaty, still in effect.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Minsk Accords which supersede the Budapest Memorandum.
Is it your informed opinion that the United States has merely blown off its responsibilities pursuant to an enforceable treaty?
What do you perceive to be the legal responsibilities of the United States pursuant to the purported legally enforceable treaty?
If the Budapest is a binding agreement, what did it bind the United States to do?
Memoranda are non-binding political agreements, the legal equivalent of a pinky swear.
As you went to the trouble of quoting without link or title from United States Department of State, Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2020, I must conclude you looked for, but did not find, the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum) anywhere in the 570 page list.
For more fun go to 1994 Treaties and Agreements, Texts of International Agreements to Which the U.S. is a Party (TIAS), and see what was listed as in force with Ukraine.
https://www.state.gov/1994-TIAS/
Try 1995:
https://www.state.gov/1995-TIAS/
Try 1996 to at least find something listed for Ukraine:
https://www.state.gov/1996-TIAS/
Ukraine (96-1116) – Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, November 16, 1996
- - - - -
As for the US, I believe that national interest and national honor both favor a full measure of help to Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression. I do not believe that we made a legally binding commitment to render such assistance.
I see. Assurances made by Russia were binding and assurances made by the United States were not binding, or the U.S. did not make any legally binding assurances. Nobody made a legally binding commitment to render assistance to Ukraine.
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.
The Russian special Military Operation was immediately referred to the Security Council. The proposed Security Council resolution failed.
https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14803.doc.htm>
8974TH MEETING (NIGHT)
SC/14803
23 February 2022Russian Federation Announces ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine as Security Council Meets in Eleventh-Hour Effort to Avoid Full-Scale Conflict
[excerpt]
In the ensuing debate, representatives from the two countries offered conflicting views of the events unfolding.
Ukraine’s delegate, who had called for the emergency meeting, addressed the representative of the Russian Federation to say that most of his prepared remarks had been rendered useless by 10 p.m. New York time, as “forty-eight minutes ago, your President declared war on Ukraine”. Requesting that the Secretary-General distribute legal United Nations memorandums from December 1991 — including a decision by the Council recommending that the Russian Federation be a Member State of the Organization — he asked his counterpart if he would state on record that Russian troops are not shelling Ukrainian cities.
“You have a smartphone, you can call [Sergey] Lavrov,” he said, referring to the Russian Foreign Minister. Absent that information, the Russian Federation must relinquish its presidency of the Security Council to a Member State respectful of the Charter. He had requested an emergency meeting to consider all necessary draft decisions to stop the conflict. “You declared the war,” he said. “It is the responsibility of this body to stop the war.”
In turn, the Russian Federation’s delegate expressed regret that calls to stop provocations against the Luhansk and Donetsk people’s republics had gone unheeded, with Ukraine harbouring a delusion that it could achieve a military solution in Donbas with help from Western sponsors. He said the Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recorded almost 2,000 violations of the ceasefire regime, including nearly 1,500 explosions, with refugees flowing into the Russian Federation.
“The tragedy of Ukraine” started after the “illegitimate coup” in 2014, he explained, when the new Government brought guns and planes upon the Russian-speaking citizens in the country’s eastern region, rather than engaging in dialogue with them. Women, children and the elderly have hidden from Ukrainian shelling for eight years. The root of the crisis lies in Kyiv’s provocations against Donbas, which prompted the leaders of the two republics to turn to Moscow for military support, in accordance with bilateral cooperation agreements. He described this as a logical step, as well as a consequence, of Kyiv’s actions.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802>
26 February 2022 | Peace and SecurityRussia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Friday that would have demanded that Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops, a move several Council members said was deplorable, but inevitable.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112842>
27 February 2022 | Peace and SecurityThe Security Council voted on Sunday to call for a rare emergency special session of the 193-member UN General Assembly on Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, which will be held on Monday.
Security Council vote sets up emergency UN General Assembly session on Ukraine crisis
The veto action taken by Russia was similar to the more than 50 vetoes cast by the United States to prevent any UN Security council action against Israel. The official determination of the Security Council was to not take action against Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
Russian–Ukrainian Friendship TreatyTreaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation
Signed: May 31, 1997; 27 years ago
Location: Kyiv, UkraineThe Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The treaty prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war. Due to the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, Ukraine announced its intention not to renew the treaty in September 2018. The treaty consequently expired on 31 March 2019. The treaty was also known as the "Big Treaty".
[...]
With its public commitment to join NATO, Ukraine violated the "mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
A legally binding contract is created when parties agree to terms that objectively manifest a meeting of the minds and a binding agreement between them. A memorandum of agreement commonly refers to a binding contract even though some details may be unresolved. As long as the essentials are agreed, a memorandum of agreement is a valid contract and can be performed and sued on.
The famous Texaco v. Pennzoil case is an example of a memorandum of agreement being held to be a binding contract even when a more detailed formal contract was intended but was not negotiated and signed. Taking the position that you advocate cost Texaco a verdict against them at trial and 3 billion dollars in settlement of the case. As a practical matter, when parties in a negotiation sign and announce a deal and start pouring champagne, the courts are likely to rule that they have a deal and will enforce it.
As for the Budapest Memorandum by which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, the terms were stated as binding, so it was a binding agreement under international law. It does not matter that it was captioned as a memorandum of agreement instead of a treaty.
An agreement between nations is by definition a treaty and is considered binding as such. Under the near universally subscribed Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, "'treaty' means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation." In short, under the Vienna Convention a written agreement between states is a treaty.
As for enforcement, if nothing else, even without a formal enforcement mechanism, countries aggrieved by a breach of a memorandum of agreement can legally impose punishments and take counter-measures. That is why the US and NATO are fully justified by international law in aiding Ukraine after Russia violated her promises not to menace or attack her. Russia and Putin broke their word and are being made to pay hard for doing so.
As for Angela Merkle's comments, they came years after Ukraine's denuclearization via the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and were in regard to Russia's violation of the much later Minsk Accords. Accused of being a fool for believing Russia's renewed promises to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, Merkle said that she and NATO did not believe Russia at the time but intended to help Ukraine resist Russia when the Minsk Accords were violated.
Notably, a similar argument is used to justify Chamberlin's appeasement of Nazi Germany at Munich before WW II. Britain was catastrophically behind Nazi Germany in rearming, with fighter aircraft and pilots grossly inadequate in numbers. Appeasement though bought Britain time to catch up so that she could win the Battle of Britain.
In any event, the aid provided Ukraine by the US and NATO has cost Russia severely. This is giving the US and NATO crucial time to rearm and rebuild their strength. Strategically, Russia is losing against the US and NATO even as she ravages Ukraine. Within a year or two that will become clear, with Russia too weak to attack NATO -- and perhaps so weakened that the Russian Federation eventually collapses as a political entity.
You are entitled to your opinions. I am trying to be patient and restrained because I have the advantages of a law degree, a judicial clerkship, and years of legal practice. Wake me up from a year in coma and I can explain what a contract is as easily as a second grader can recite the alphabet.
I am sure you studied under Arthur Linton Corbin. It appears impossible to wake you from your coma. If you succumb to your coma, we will have to bury you twelve feet deep because, deep down, lawyers are good people. And you think an MOU is a bindinng agreement at international law.
I'll start. A contract consists of an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a lawful purpose.
An agreement between sovereigns may, or may not, be a binding contract.
U.S. Const, Article 2: "He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Absent the consent of the Senate, the President cannot enter into a binding treaty.
A binding treaty is a contract between nations. Absent senate consent, the President can enter into an Executive Agreement which is not a treaty, and which does not carry the authority of a treaty. It is entered into by two or more heads of state, not nations.
The authority of an Executive Agreement ceases to exist when the Executive leaves office. Agreements between nations continue indefinitely or as set forth in the treaty.
The famous Texaco v. Pennzoil case is an example of a memorandum of agreement being held to be a binding contract even when a more detailed formal contract was intended but was not negotiated and signed.
I am not familiar with the sovereign states of Texaco or Pennzoil, nor have I ever heard of either one entering into a treaty.
Binding treaties between sovereign nations are separate and apart from contracts between corporations.
With the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum), you are experiencing embarrassment trying to state what it bound the United States to do. I may as well add the UK and Ukraine. Only Russia do you find to have been somehow bound to do something.
As a practical matter, when parties in a negotiation sign and announce a deal and start pouring champagne, the courts are likely to rule that they have a deal and will enforce it.
As a general matter, such courts are not ordering sovereign nations with an army. Just how does your local court enforce an agreement with a foreign and sovereign nation?
As for enforcement, if nothing else, even without a formal enforcement mechanism, countries aggrieved by a breach of a memorandum of agreement can legally impose punishments and take counter-measures. That is why the US and NATO are fully justified by international law in aiding Ukraine after Russia violated her promises not to menace or attack her. Russia and Putin broke their word and are being made to pay hard for doing so.
As for enforcement at the United Nations, before an agreement can even be considered, it must be registered at the United Nations. The "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum) was not registered until twenty years after the fact, in 2014, after it was well and truly dead.
The US and NATO are not fully justified in aiding one side of a conflict with arms of war. You have a mighty strange sense of the law of neutrality. They can get away with it while the aggrieved side does not want to declare war over the transgression. Before the United States was a party to WW2, Roosevelt got away with it until the Japanese felt sufficiently aggrieved and there was Pearl Harbor.
NATO was in no way a party to the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum).
As for Angela Merkle's comments, they came years after Ukraine's denuclearization via the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and were in regard to Russia's violation of the much later Minsk Accords.
Merkel's comments about the Minsk Accords, a ceasefire agreement, tell the tale of why Russia will not again enter into such an agreement that the brokering parties have no intent to implement, but intent to use only to gain time for Ukraine under false pretenses to rearm and reinforce Ukraine.
Appeasement though bought Britain time to catch up so that she could win the Battle of Britain.
The biggest factors in the Battle of Britain were the English Channel, radar, and cracking the Enigma code. Germany was unable to iniate any ground war. The rest of western Europe lasted a few months against the German army. Then, like Napoloean, the Germans made the mistake of attacking Russia.
In any event, the aid provided Ukraine by the US and NATO has cost Russia severely. This is giving the US and NATO crucial time to rearm and rebuild their strength. Strategically, Russia is losing against the US and NATO even as she ravages Ukraine. Within a year or two that will become clear, with Russia too weak to attack NATO -- and perhaps so weakened that the Russian Federation eventually collapses as a political entity.
The "aid" provided by the US and other NATO members has cost Ukraine most severely. It is being destroyed as a nation. A generation of its men are being senselessly slaughtered at the neocon altar. Russia is crushing Ukraine, leveling cities and towns, putting Ukraine in the dark, and destroying their military capability. When Ukraine is left as a failed state, with it neighbors divvying up sectors of what used to be their historic land, you and your ilk can celebrate what you have wrought.
Within a year or two that will become clear, with Russia too weak to attack NATO -- and perhaps so weakened that the Russian Federation eventually collapses as a political entity.
Within a year or two, with the help of the neocon zeepers, Ukraine will be a failed state. It will exist in history books. It will be another chapter on poking the bear, adding to Napolean and Hitler.
I feel I am repeating myself, but as you do everything but respond to my actual content, here goes.
If the Budapest Memorandum is a binding agreement, what did it bind the United States to do?
Memoranda are non-binding political agreements, the legal equivalent of a pinky swear.
As you went to the trouble of quoting without link or title from United States Department of State, Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2020, I must conclude you looked for, but did not find, the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum) anywhere in the 570 page list.
For more fun go to 1994 Treaties and Agreements, Texts of International Agreements to Which the U.S. is a Party (TIAS), and see what was listed as in force with Ukraine.
https://www.state.gov/1994-TIAS/
Try 1995:
https://www.state.gov/1995-TIAS/
Try 1996 to at least find something listed for Ukraine:
https://www.state.gov/1996-TIAS/
Ukraine (96-1116) – Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, November 16, 1996
Your self-proclaimed binding agreement, "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum) did not appear in your cited 2020 edition of Treaties in Force. Neither did it appear in the 1994, 1995, or 1996 editions of Treaties and Agreements, Texts of International Agreements to Which the U.S. is a Party (TIAS). There are editions of these things every year. Isn't it quite an anomaly that what you describe as a binding agreement, that evidently only binds Russia in some unknown fashion, has never made an appearance in the lists of treaties and agreements?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
Russian–Ukrainian Friendship TreatyTreaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation
Signed: May 31, 1997; 27 years ago
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Entry into force: 1 April 1999, in accordance with article 39
Authentic texts: Russian and Ukrainian
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The treaty prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war. Due to the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, Ukraine announced its intention not to renew the treaty in September 2018. The treaty consequently expired on 31 March 2019. The treaty was also known as the "Big Treaty".
[...]
With its public commitment to join NATO, Ukraine violated the "mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other."
This binding agreement surely superseded the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum).
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
executive agreement. (1942) An international agreement entered into by the President, without approval by the Senate, and usu. involving routine diplomatic or military matters. Cf. Treaty (1).
- - - - -
treaty. 1 An agreement, formally signed, ratified, or adhered to between two countries or sovereigns, an international agreement concluded between two or more states in written form and governed by internationjal law. — Also termed accord; convention; cvenant; declaration; pact. Cf. Executive Agreement."Contracts between sovereign states are called by various names, none of which has a fixed meaning. Treaty is the generic term for an agreement formally signed, ratified, or adhered to by two or mlore sovereign states {Treaty of Warsaw}. An accord is any type of amicable arrangement between people or nations {Geneva Accord} . Concord is a more formal, slightly archaic equivalent of accord. A protocol is a treaty amending or supplementing an earlier treaty {Kyoto Protocol}. A declaration is ordinarily an agreement that makes or declares law {Declaration of Paris} An act generally results from a formal conference involving high officials. A compact is an earnest exchange of promises between sovereigns {United Nations Global Compact}. Pact, a less formal equivalent, appears in certain set phrases such as suicide pact. A paction is a compact between two nations to be completed by the performance of a single act; the term is rare today. An entente, a shortened form of the French entente cordiale, is an amicable agreement between nations referring to some policy or course of action, especially nvolving foreign affairs {Anglo-Russian Entente}. A convention is less formal or more specific type of multi-lateral treaty {Vienna Convention}. A cartel is a written agreement between opposing nations (belligerents) during wartime to regulate whatever dealings will take place between them {cartel for the exchange of prisoners of war}. A concordat is an agreement between a secular government and a church, especially the Vatican, for regulating church-state affairs {Concordat of 1801}.... in the U.S. an executive agreement is an agreement between the U.S. and another nation. Unlike a treaty, which must have the advice and consent of the Senate, an executive agreement is made by thje President but not ratified by the Senate. Some writers loosely refer to executive agreements as treaties. Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage902, (3d ed. 2011)."International law relating to treaties has largely been codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)('VCLT'). For the purposes of the VCLT, a 'treaty' is defined as 'an international agreement concluded between States in written form, and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation' ... An agreement between a State and a non-State entity does not constitute an international treaty, although such an agreement may be governed by international lawissues...." Malgosia Fitzmaurice, "Treaties," in 9 The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law 1060, 1061 (Rudiger Wolfrum ed., 2012) (citation omitted)
memorandum. (15c) 1 A written note or record outlining the terms of a transaction or contract {the memorandum indicated the developer's intent to biy the property at its appraised value}.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/practice/registration_and_publication.pdf
REGISTRATION AND PUBLICATION OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS:REGULATIONS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ARTICLE 102 OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1946 [Resolution 97 (1)], as modified by resolutions 364 B (IV), 482 (V) and 33/141 A, adopted by the General Assembly on 1 December 1949, 12 December 1950 and 18 December 1978, respectively.
The General Assembly,
Considering it desirable to establish rules for the application of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations which provides as follows:
1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
Recognizing, in making provision therefore, the importance of orderly registration and publication of such treaties and international agreements and the maintenance of precise records;
Adopts accordingly, having given consideration to the proposals of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to the resolution of the General Assembly of 10 February 1946, the following regulations:
PART ONE
REGISTRATIONArticle 1
1. Every treaty or international agreement, whatever its form and descriptive name, entered into by one or more Members of the United Nations after 24 October 1945, the date of the coming into force of the Charter, shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat in accordance with these regulations.
2. Registration shall not take place until the treaty or international agreement has come into force between two or more of the parties thereto.
3. Such registration may be effected by any party or in accordance with article 4 of these regulations.
4. The Secretariat shall record the treaties and international agreements so registered in a register established for that purpose.
[...]
No party to the "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994" (Budapest Memorandum) tried to register said Memorandum with the United Nations until 2014.
The United Nations has never authorized any enforcement action regarding the Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994 (Budapest Memorandum).
Australia’s practice for concluding less-than-treaty status instrumentsThis Guidance Note provides general guidance on Australia’s practice for concluding less-than-treaty status instruments with foreign governments. Any Commonwealth Government agency intending to enter into such an instrument should do so in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s International Law: Advising and Treaties Section (Treaties Section) and the relevant DFAT policy desk.
What is an instrument of less-than-treaty status?
An instrument of less-than-treaty status is intended to embody a political commitment without creating (of its own force) legal rights or obligations. As it is not binding under international law, an instrument of less-than-treaty status is not subject to Australia’s treaty-making process.
The most common form for an instrument of less-than-treaty status is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Other forms include arrangements, exchanges of notes, letters recording understandings, records of discussion and joint communiqués.
Drafting and negotiating the text
Commonwealth Government agencies wishing to enter into an instrument of less-than-treaty status with a foreign government are responsible for drafting and negotiating the text, in consultation with DFAT’s Treaties Section and the relevant DFAT policy desk. Agencies should follow the guidance on language and key provisions below.
Language
To avoid any misunderstandings over the status of an instrument, it is important that the intention of the participants is clear. Whilst the intention of the participants is paramount in determining the legal status of an instrument, Australia’s practice is to use non-mandatory language in less-than-treaty status instruments. For example, under Australian practice, terms such as ‘agreement’, ‘agree’ and ‘agreed’ denote a treaty, while other terms, such as ‘arrangement’, ‘decide’ and ‘jointly determine’ denote an instrument of less-than-treaty status.
The table at Annex 1 contains further guidance on language suitable for use in instruments of less-than-treaty status.
Key provisions
Formal preambles should be avoided in instruments of less-than-treaty status, although informally phrased opening recitals may be appropriate.
Any provision for the settlement of disputes should be in terms of amicable resolution, rather than formal arbitration or any other form of binding dispute settlement.
Subdivisions of the instrument should be referred to as paragraphs rather than articles.
The instrument should be expressed to ‘come into effect’ rather than to ‘enter into force’.
The attestation clause should read ‘SIGNED at ..... on .....’, rather than ‘DONE at ..... on .....’.
A Model MOU including sample paragraphs for use in a less-than-treaty status instrument is at Annex 2.
Clearance
All instruments of less-than-treaty status must be sent to DFAT’s Treaties Section for clearance prior to signature. This clearance consists principally of ensuring there is no treaty language in the text of the proposed instrument and that it does not contain anything that would imply that the instrument is binding at international law.
Retention of original texts
Following signature of an instrument of less-than-treaty status, the relevant lead agency should retain the original signed version. DFAT’s Treaties Section does not maintain a collection of instruments of less-than-treaty status.
Contact us
International Law: Advising and Treaties Section
International Law Branch | Legal Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeEmail: treaties@dfat.gov.au
- - - - - - - - - -
Annex 1: Language for use in instruments of less-than-treaty status
[excerpts]
Language for instruments binding under international law (i.e. treaties)
Agreement
[legal] obligations
duties
Language for non-binding instruments (e.g. MOUs)
commitments
undertakings
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia. Or are those not countries on the russkie border?
At a major address in Germany, the Veep of the USA openly stated Uke was to be admitted weeks before the SMO. Should the russkies have waited until that was formalized, and thus invite an Article 5 response to pushing NATO in Ukeland back?
You may need to brush up on your history and facts.
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.