Posted on 03/05/2022 6:28:01 PM PST by Kevmo
From Conservapedia:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances:_1994
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven PiferThursday, December 5, 2019
ORDER FROM CHAOS
Facebook
Click to share on Facebook
Twitter
Click to share on Twitter
LinkedIn
Click to share on LinkedIn
Print
Click to print
Email
Click to email this to a friend
More
Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, the United States has provided Ukraine with $3 billion in reform and military assistance and $3 billion in loan guarantees. U.S. troops in western Ukraine train their Ukrainian colleagues. Washington, in concert with the European Union, has taken steps to isolate Moscow politically and imposed a series of economic and visa sanctions on Russia and Russians.
Steven Pifer
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Center on the United States and Europe, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative
steven_pifer
The furor over President Donald Trump’s sordid bid to extort the president of Ukraine into investigating his potential 2020 political opponent raises an obvious question: Why should the United States care so much about Ukraine, a country 5,000 miles away? A big part of the reason is that U.S. officials told the Ukrainians the United States would care when negotiating the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances, signed 25 years ago this week.
A NUCLEAR-ARMED STATE BREAKS UP
In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. Those assurances played a key role in persuading the Ukrainian government in Kyiv to give up what amounted to the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, consisting of some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads.
When the USSR broke up in late 1991, there were nuclear weapons scattered in the resulting post-Soviet states. The George H. W. Bush administration attached highest priority to ensuring this would not lead to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. Moreover, as it watched Yugoslavia break apart violently, the Bush administration worried that the Soviet collapse might also turn violent, raising the prospect of conflict among nuclear-armed states. Ensuring no increase in the number of nuclear weapons states meant that, in practice, only Russia would retain nuclear arms. The Clinton administration pursued the same goal. With the prospect of extending the Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely looming, an alternative course that allowed other post-Soviet states to keep nuclear weapons would have set a bad precedent.
Related Books
The Eagle and the Trident
By Steven Pifer 2017
Putin’s World book cover
Putin’s World: Russia Against the West and With the Rest
By Angela Stent 2019
Eliminating the strategic nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and strategic bombers in Ukraine was a big deal for Washington. The ICBMs and bombers carried warheads of monstrous size — all designed, built, and deployed to attack America. The warheads atop the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs in Ukraine had explosive yields of 400-550 kilotons each — that is, 27 to 37 times the size of the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima. The 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads — more than six times the number of nuclear warheads that China currently possesses — could have destroyed every U.S. city with a population of more than 50,000 three times over, with warheads left to spare.
ASSURANCES FOR UKRAINE
Before agreeing to give up this nuclear arsenal, Kyiv sought three assurances. First, it wanted compensation for the value of the highly-enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads, which could be blended down for use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Russia agreed to provide that.
Second, eliminating ICBMs, ICBM silos, and bombers did not come cheaply. With its economy rapidly contracting, the Ukrainian government could not afford the costs. The United States agreed to cover those costs with Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance.
Third, Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.
Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.
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. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.
U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.
Washington should do this, because it said it would act if Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. That was part of the price it paid in return for a drastic reduction in the nuclear threat to America. The United States should keep its word.
RELATED CONTENT
ORDER FROM CHAOS
How much have Trump’s dealings with Ukraine deviated from the presidential norm?
James Goldgeier and Elizabeth N. SaundersFriday, November 1, 2019
Also in violation of the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation 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.
Actions speak louder than words.
Nukes speak louder than assurances.
That retarded. Russia has no agreements with this Ukraine. That one was with old Ukraine that ended in 2014.
One truism that will never change, “Might Makes Right”.
Humans have never evolved from this.
No update for 2022 yet on Wikipedia... “the treaty did expire on 31 March 2019.”
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation
Signed May 31, 1997; 24 years ago[1]
Effective 1 April 1999
Expiration 31 March 2019
Signatories
Ukraine
Russia
Languages Ukrainian, Russian
The 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.[2] Ukraine announced its intention not to renew the treaty in September 2018.[3] By doing so the treaty did expire on 31 March 2019.[4][3] The treaty was also known as the “Big Treaty”.[5][6]
Until 2019 the treaty was automatically renewed on each 10th anniversary of its signing, unless one party advised the other of its intention to end the treaty six months prior to the date of the renewal.[1][7]
Russia–Ukraine relations have deteriorated since the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian support for separatist forces in the war in Ukraine’s Donbass region.[8] In response, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree not to extend the treaty.
Contents
1 Signing and ratification
2 Contents of the treaty
3 Termination
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Signing and ratification
The treaty was signed in Kyiv on 31 May 1997 by the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma and Russian President Boris Yeltsin.[1]
In Ukraine, the treaty was ratified by the Law of Ukraine No. 13/98-VR on 14 January 1998 (On ratification of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation).[9]
In Russia, on 25 December 1998, the State Duma of the Federal Assembly adopted a resolution on the adoption of the federal law “On ratification of the Agreement of Friendship, Collaboration and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine” and directed it to the Federation Council. The Federation Council approved this federal law by the Resolution on 17 February 1999. The treaty was ratified.[10]
The document superseded the previous treaty between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of 19 November 1990 (before dissolution of the Soviet Union).[11][12]
Contents of the treaty
Under the agreement both parties ensure the citizens of the other countries’ rights and freedoms on the same basis and to the same extent that it provides for its citizens, except as prescribed by national legislation of States or international treaties.
Every country protects in established order of the rights of its citizens living in another country, in accordance with commitments to documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other universally recognized principles and norms of international law, agreements within the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The agreement, among other things prematurely confirms the inviolability of borders of countries,[1] regardless that Russia and Ukraine had not finalized a border between the two countries.[13] The border was delineated in the 2003 Treaty on the Russian-Ukrainian State Border, but Ukraine has started the agreed-upon demarcation unilaterally after Russia dragged its feet.[14]
Under Article 2:
In accord with provisions of the UN Charter and the obligations of the Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the High Contracting Parties shall respect each other′s territorial integrity and reaffirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them.[15][7][16]
The Treaty document stipulates in Article 40 that the Treaty is entered into for a period of 10 years and renews automatically unless one of the parties notifies the other of its intention to curtail the Treaty.[1]
Termination
On 19 September 2018, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree not to extend the treaty. On 3 December 2018, Poroshenko drafted a legislation to Parliament to end the Treaty of Friendship immediately; with support coming from Western allies within the United Nations Security Council.[3][17] According to Poroshenko the non-renewal “does not require a vote” in the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine announced that on 21 September 2018, it would notify the United Nations and other relevant organizations on the termination of the treaty.[18] Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it was notified on 24 September 2018 of the treaty’s termination by Ukraine, expressing regret.[19]
On 3 December 2018 Poroshenko did submit a bill on the termination of the treaty to parliament; 277 MPs supported the termination of the treaty, while 20 legislators voted against it.[20]
So?
That one was with old Ukraine that ended in 2014.
***Wow, that’s some seriously convoluted evil thinkin’ ya got goin’ there, the treaty doesn’t apply because Russia invaded in 2014. Just dayamn.
Kevmo is deep state propagandist.
When we burn in the camps Kevmo will be there to insult us.
They violated it in 2014, when the treaty was still in force.
You could look across the sky in daylight and fail to see the sun.
The update for 2022 says that Ukraine is now allowed to pursue nuclear options.
We have already obligated ourselves. The 2022 update shows they’re willing to pursue a nuclear path. I wouldn’t blame them. They’re in an existential fight, they trusted us and we sold them down the river.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 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;
A decent argument can be made that the West's monkeying around with Ukraine's government (insofar as corrupt influence-peddling goes, especially vis-a-vis America going back to 2013-2014) constituted a violation of Item #3, after which all bets were off.
But this Memorandum is a red herring anyway, because it lacks any means of compliance or enforcement that would be binding upon those who violated the terms therein.
This is the great fiction of "international law": it only has teeth so long as the nations who are the Great Powers agree to abide by them. Once a Great Power (be it America, China, Russia, etc. going back to the empires of old, including the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and so on) decides that violating an agreement or a 'treaty' (because this memo, lacking ratification by Congress, can hardly be called a treaty) is within their national interest, they will do so (regardless of who else in the world complains).
That is the lesson of history.
What do you think Kevmo? We all know that a “big tent Republican” just basically describes a neocon leftist who wakes up in the morning with the sheets held up by a war-boner.
We are being subjugated at home here in America yet you are trying to lead us into a foreign war where we have no interest. Who pays you?
Who would believe a word about a Ukrainian border that's coming from traitors who actively violate our own?
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.