This is about Ukraine, not the entire world. That said, I don’t fully agree with all our foreign commitments abroad either, but that’s not the point.
Which country interferes more in the internal affairs of Ukraine, Russia or the United States?
23 January, 09:44
Russia outraged at foreign interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs – Putin’s aide
The Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov says Kiev is capable of finding on its own the best solutions for bringing the situation back to normal in and restoring peace to Ukraine. Peskov said that the obvious external interference in the processes under way in Kiev are clearly deplorable and arouse Moscow’s indignation.
“It’s hard to comprehend why foreign ambassadors in Kiev should tell the Ukrainian authorities where these should withdraw their Interior Ministry troops and police from, what they should do next etc. In other words, we see these kinds of outside instructions as something altogether incomprehensible. Of course, we can’t approve of it and feel intense indignation about it,” Peskov said in an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily. The interview has been posted on the daily’s website.
According to Peskov, Moscow is certain that Ukraine’s leaders are perfectly aware of what they should do. Ukraine is Russia’s partner; Russian-Ukrainian cooperation is multifaceted, the two countries have large-scale and long-term cooperation. There is absolutely no way Russia and Ukraine can avoid being partners, the official said.
Dmitry Peskov further said that Moscow doesn’t see it right to interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal Ukraine in any way. This is inadmissible, so Russia will never do that. Any decisions by Kiev are sovereign and made by Ukrainian leaders in the framework of democratic processes. So, we see any interference, any attempts to bring political pressure to bear through the use of political management instruments as inadmissible, the Russian President’s press secretary stressed.
What right do we have to interfere? Except for the little treaty.
The United States and Britain “reaffirmed” their commitment to protect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for the nation giving up its nuclear weapons in a little-known agreement known as the “Budapest Memorandum signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994.
The Daily Mail notes reports “if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.”
Sir Tony Brenton, who served as a British ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said war is certainly on the table if it’s determined that the Budapest Memorandum is “legally binding.”
http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/19691256/Bill_Clinton_signed_a_treaty_Ukraine_War
March 1, 2014
Does the 1994 ‘Budapest Memorandum’ obligate the US to intervene in Ukraine?
There’s been a lot of loose talk about a 1994 “treaty” that obligates the US to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. As Financial Times reports, this is vastly overstating the reality of our agreement with Ukraine, which in no way says the US must come to Ukraine’s defense militarily.
Ukraine’s new prime minister invoked 20-year-old international agreement as he appealed for western powers to help him resist Russian attempts to assert itself in the south of the country.
Arseniy Yatseniuk called upon the members of the UN Security Council to help preserve Ukraine’s “territorial integrity” hours after armed pro-Russian separatists in Crimea took over the local parliament calling for unification with Moscow.
His words are a deliberate echo of the so-called Budapest Memorandum, signed as part of the deal that saw Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons in 1994.
According to the agreement, the US, UK and Russia all agreed to protect the sovereignty and “territorial agreement” of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for an attempt to declare Crimean independence would be in violation of their international obligations.
The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
Significantly, the wording suggests Russia’s insistence that Ukraine forgo an EU trade deal may have already breached the terms of the agreement.
The signatories agreed to “refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind”.
Western diplomats are now scouring the text to check whether they are obliged to intervene in the country to prevent it from breaking up if Russia does so first.
John Lough, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, the foreign policy think-tank, said: “While this does not legally oblige the UK and other western powers to intervene, they might feel morally obliged to.”
He added: “Russia has already violated the spirit and letter of this agreement through the economic pressure applied to Ukraine in the run-up to the Vilnius Summit,” a reference to the November meeting when then president Viktor Yanukovich declined to sign the EU deal.