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.
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.