Russia is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances:_1994

At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,800 strategic warheads, 176 long-range ballistic missiles, and 42 strategic bombers.

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum included 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.

The United States took custody and control of Ukraine's obsolete nuclear stockpiles for disposal in exchange for assurances by the United States and NATO to safeguard Ukraine's independence. Ukraine was coaxed to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for a written pledge, should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power.

By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its operational nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.[101]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Main article: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly commented on the Budapest Memorandum by arguing that it provides no true guarantee of safety due to Russia's coercive power. On 19 February 2022, Zelenskyy made a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said "Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. ... If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt."[42] Putin used Zelenskyy's comments as part of his claims that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons. Critics have disputed Putin's claims.[43] This treaty has since been violated by Russia at the outbreak of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

--------------------------------------------------------- Wikipedia intro section:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2]

Annexation of Crimea by Russia Further information: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia after hosting the Budapest Memorandum Ministerial on the Ukraine crisis in Paris, France, on 5 March 2014. In February 2014, Russian forces seized or blockaded various airports and other strategic sites throughout Crimea.[32] The troops were attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea,[33] which placed Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Foreign Ministry had confirmed the movement of armoured units attached to the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea but asserted that they were acting within the scope of the various agreements between the two countries.[citation needed] Russia responded by supporting a referendum on whether the Crimea should join it. Russia announced the referendums were being conducted by "local forces". On 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea and Ukraine vigorously protested the action as a violation of Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum.

In response to the crisis, the Ukrainian parliament requested the Memorandum's signatories to reaffirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in the political agreement and asked for them to hold consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions.[34]

On 24 March 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the G7 partners in an ad hoc meeting during the Nuclear Security Summit, at The Hague, for a partial suspension of Russian membership due to Russia's breach of the Budapest Memorandum. He said that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons "on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity. By breaching that guarantee, President Putin has provided a rationale for those elsewhere who needed little more than that already furnished by pride or grievance to arm themselves to the teeth." Harper also indicated support for Ukraine by saying he would work with the new Ukrainian government towards a free trade agreement.[35]

In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes."[36] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out that "there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is 'to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'". Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov's claim on the Twitter account of Russia's embassy in the United Kingdom actually "provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated – right there for everyone to see." Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented on "the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?"[37] Russia argued that the United States broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the Yanukovych government.

On 20 April 2016, Ukraine established the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories,[38] to manage occupied parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions, which are affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.

Execution of ‘nuclear Ukraine’ project was mere months away, source says
3/6/2022, 5:19:29 PM · 101 of 148
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4044173/posts?page=101#101

Kevmo to thinden
Putin DID cite this talking point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Main article: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly commented on the Budapest Memorandum by arguing that it provides no true guarantee of safety due to Russia’s coercive power. On 19 February 2022, Zelenskyy made a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said “Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. ... If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.”[42] Putin used Zelenskyy’s comments as part of his claims that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons. Critics have disputed Putin’s claims.[43] This treaty has since been violated by Russia at the outbreak of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies

I will be answering the treaty aspects to our discussion here on the treaty discussion thread.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4053670/posts?page=164#164

Ultra Sonic 007 to Kevmo
Kevmo: It is an accession to a Treaty. Asked & Answered
US7:The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is separate from the Budapest Memorandum.
***It is an accession, an addendum to the Treaty. Hence, it is a treaty.

They are not one and the same.
***They are interrelated as elements of the nonproliferation Treaty.

Kevmo: One of the signatories to the treaty INVADED the other.
US7: And again, what does the Memorandum call for?
***And again, since this wasn’t “really” an invasion, the Rukes “really” were “respecting” Uke borders and sovereignty then that leaves it wide open for us to go in and kick Ruke ass and restore the original borders, per the Agreement.

Going to the UN Security Council. And that’s only *if* nuclear weapons were used against a non-nuclear state.
***That part aint true. There are elements of straightforward conventional threats and antagonism mentioned in the treaty. But I don’t really care that much about it, the wording is there for everyone to read.

Don’t blame me for the Memo being toothless.
***I sure do blame you because you are trying to make it even MORE toothless and allow this kind of nuclear proliferation to flourish across the world while at the same time as appeasing an obvious regional tyrant.

Kevmo: From my perspective we should send volunteer American forces in a Lend Lease program where we fight for American emBASEee territory in Ukraine. I call it the emBASEee strategee and the Lend Leasee strategee, the BBudapest AAgreement LLend LLease approach which would take BALLs.
US7: Cute. Go ahead and see if your Congressman will bring it up for a vote.
***There are all kinds of things that can take place militarily long before a congressional vote is deemed necessary. Besides, this current congress is probably ready to intervene.

It’s not like we have more pressing domestic problems.
***Gettin’ our representatives to represent us is definitely a problem, but I don’t mind that they are tryin’ to do the right thing about nuclear nonproliferation; you seem to be okay with such nuclear proliferation.

....
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies

It is an accession, an addendum to the Treaty. Hence, it is a treaty.

It is an addendum to UKRAINE'S accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. By standard practice and custom, for the Memorandum to have any legal force as far as America is concerned (beyond the presidency of Bill Clinton, at the very most), it would have had to go through the U.S. Senate with two-thirds approval, same as with any other treaty.

To provide a contrasting example, take the Accession of Montenegro to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949: when Montenegro wanted to join NATO, their accession to that treaty was voted on by the US Senate, where it passed on 3/28/2017 by a vote of 97 to 2.

Since the Budapest Memo was not treated the same, all of your other points related to the Memo are summarily dismissed as a consequence.

Gettin’ our representatives to represent us is definitely a problem, but I don’t mind that they are tryin’ to do the right thing about nuclear nonproliferation; you seem to be okay with such nuclear proliferation.

Not to the degree you seem to. I think America has no business getting involved in direct conflict in yet another conventional war between European states. Europe has a far more vested interest in the conflict than we do, being neighbors to both. But contra you, I don't think selling arms and materials to Ukraine will accomplish anything other than prolonging the war and making the ultimate cost on both sides more expensive as a result.

which has a TREATY with another country

No matter how often you repeat this, the fact that this Budapest Memorandum has no binding force on America, due to lacking Senate approval, will not change. It is the right thing to do.

The Memorandum doesn't demand military intervention from the United States, no matter how hard you look for it.

And after the lovely results of America's foreign military 'adventures' over the past two decades, I still maintain that getting involved in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the wrong thing for America right now.

No matter how often you repeat this, the fact that this Budapest Memorandum has no binding force on America, due to lacking Senate approval, will not change.
***It is an accession to an approved nuclear nonproliferation treaty, signed by the prez. Accession protocols are well established at the UN. What is the problem you have with that?

It is the right thing to do.
***The right thing to do is respect the borders and sovereignty of the Ukraine, as we signed onto.

The Memorandum doesn’t demand military intervention from the United States, no matter how hard you look for it.
***It doesn’t prevent it. It says nuke proliferation is a real bad thing and we’re gonna do sumthin about it in da Ukraine, so that’s what we did. And now that the Ukes are takin’it up the backside from the Rukes, NOW is when you’re lookin’ to get all nitpicky about rules. Then get nitpicky about accession protocols to United Nations nonproliferation treaties that have been ratified. Go ahead.

And after the lovely results of America’s foreign military ‘adventures’ over the past two decades,
***Wouldn’t be a problem if we followed the emBASEee strategee.

I still maintain that getting involved in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the wrong thing for America right now.
***Then we never shoulda signed in 1994. It was right to sign in 1994, it was right to denuke the Ukes, and it is right to help them get their borders & sovereignty back.

My problem is that you’re treating the Memorandum as something it’s not.
***Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not. In addition, you’re treating the whole issue in a manner where you had your conclusion — that we shouldn’t get involved — a priori and are applying all that to your reasoning process. That’s how you end up trying to unhook from a perfectly reasonable nonproliferation treaty, from staring down a regional bully Putler who has INVADED a signatory country twice over oil & gas, and from simply doing the right thing in this situation.

Was the Budapest Memorandum ever approved
***Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?

by two-thirds of the United States Senate
***The TREATY that it is a part of, that treaty was approved. The ACCESSION process that was used, that was approved AFAICT. Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.

(as any such accession to treaties would require to have legal validity as far as America is concerned): yes or no?
***If it’s the right thing to do, is it right to do it? Yes or no?
***

If it’s the right thing to do, is it right to do it?

You assume that contributing military aid at this juncture is in fact the "right" thing, which I don't agree with.

Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not.

The non-proliferation treaty you refer to can be read here; what exactly does the current conflict have anything to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?

Not our war, not our business. Or do you think America should be the policeman of the entire world?

Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.

Here's a curious thing: one of the things the Memorandum also stipulates is that the United States, the UK, and Russia were 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." Would you count as an example of economic coercion, as just one example, Joseph R. Biden's threat in 2015 to withhold a billion dollars in US loan guarantees if then-President Petro Poroshenko didn't sack Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin?

If it’s the right thing to do, is it right to do it?
You assume that contributing military aid at this juncture is in fact the “right” thing, which I don’t agree with.
***I didn’t assume it, I arrived at it. YOU assumed it and all your reasoning works backwards from there.

Kevmo:Then my problem is you’re treating the ratified nonproliferation TREATY as something it’s not.
US7: The non-proliferation treaty you refer to can be read here; what exactly does the current conflict have anything to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
***The current conflict never woulda happened if the Ukes hadn’t given up those weapons in that agreement. Also, other countries are watching intently and realizing that nukes mean sovereignty from big bullies, and that the USA cannot be trusted.

Kevmo:Is it the right thing to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty?
US7: Not our war, not our business.
***This is your assumption, and you work backwards from there. It IS our war because it happened due to us.

Or do you think America should be the policeman of the entire world?
***No. I think we should involve ourselves in this one because we involved ourselves when it benefited us.

Kevmo: Just because we have had 2 weak presidents unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t make it an unapproved treaty.
US7: Here’s a curious thing:
***Here is a curious thing about your reply: You do not refute the premise; thereby you have accepted I’m correct in my approach.

one of the things the Memorandum also stipulates is that the United States, the UK, and Russia were 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.” Would you count as an example of economic coercion, as just one example, Joseph R. Biden’s threat in 2015 to withhold a billion dollars in US loan guarantees if then-President Petro Poroshenko didn’t sack Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin?
***Well, yes, I would. So the Ukes shoulda reported it as a violation of the treaty. Is INVADING the Ukraine a violation of the treaty? The Rukes don’t seem to think so, therefore we can just not-invade it ourselves and “respect the sovereignty” and borders per the original agreement. Set up emBASEees to counteract any future terrorism in that region, let the UN sort out any treaty violations from that point onward once the borders & sovereignty have been set to the boundaries stipulated.

All righty then. Since my tagline is turning into a point of discussion, and this has turned into an asked & answered thread, I’ll discuss my tagline here.

This Budapest Agreement was an “accession” to a signed international United Nations, ratified nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The Ukes honored it and gave up those nukes. The Rukes violated it twice by invading twice, by happenstance it was when there were weak-kneed democrap presidents in office whom Vlad knew would not do anything about an invasion. And the USA has been looking for all kinds of ways to abrogate our responsibility in this treaty/agreement even though it points to disaster down the road for nuclear nonproliferation.

So when I say give back the Ukes their nukes, it is an acknowledgement that nukes are sovereignty. They gave up some nukes in exchange for “assurances” for borders and sovereignty. Since they are in an existential war, who are we to scold them for building nukes since that is what we did when we were in our existential war, and we are the ones who have betrayed them.

If the Ukes develop and deploy a suitcase nuke on a Russian city, it is because they got pushed into an existential corner. What we really should be doing is putting CONVENTIONAL forces into this fight in a way that genuinely “assures” borders and sovereignty for a country that did the right thing. After all, the Russian bear has been shown to be rather toothless compared to what most of us thought they would be in this fight, so the US would kick some serious @$$.

And if we send in American boots on the ground, we damned well better be negotiating American Land as the thing to fight for. Big, sweeping American EmBASEees along the border between Russia and Ukraine. A Lend Lease project. Americans fighting for American land. For generations we could use that land to build airports and fight terrorism in that region. I would call it the BBudapest AAgreement LLend LLease program because it would take BALLs.

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.