General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt the fall of the USSR wasn't there an agreement the US would back Ukraine if
they gave up their 1400 nukes.
Happy Hoosier
(7,314 posts)1994 Budapest Memorandum. US, UK, and Russia guarantee Ukraine's borders and independence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
David__77
(23,421 posts)
Happy Hoosier
(7,314 posts)I haven't heard their analysis. I am having a hard time seeing how they can possibly wiggle out of some kind of obligation.
David__77
(23,421 posts)If there were, it would have been ratified by the senate.
Happy Hoosier
(7,314 posts)It sure seems like that's the line. Shameful, IMHO.
What next, as we gonna claim that we didn't pinky-swear, so it doesn't count?
David__77
(23,421 posts)Biden is not among them.
honest.abe
(8,678 posts)David__77
(23,421 posts)There was no reservation on that point. The message was very clear. Could he change it or any other decision- sure, yes. Just shout anything is possible regardless of likelihood.
EndlessWire
(6,537 posts)You can't renege on an agreement just because you now don't like what you agreed on. I understand the NATO pickle. But, that was before I found out about the Budapest Memorandum.
It's unconscionable that we would not do more on our own to help Ukraine. We could send President Z the planes that he is requesting. We could train pilots. Any number of other, private assistance that Ukraine needs. All of it without boots on the ground.
When Russia kills Zelensky, if and when he lines up the government of Ukraine to be shot, when Ukraine ceases to be Ukraine, we will click our tongues and say, too bad. We will forget that we ever made a promise that we apparently lied about. We will stand there in sorrow and discuss what to do with all the yachts we confiscated.
Ukraine is going down. Maybe not today, but surely tomorrow. They need help today. They need those that signed the Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine to honor the agreement. Putin will NOT stop threatening the world with nuclear destruction if he does not get his way. He has never budged from his demands. He will keep on. He has no intent to stop despite multiple demands and pleas to stop.
Perhaps we don't care about silly old Ukraine--but what about Sweden? Or Finland? They could be next. He just needs to bypass the NATO countries for now, and go after those that have not joined NATO. He now knows that NATO will not protect those that he interferes with who do not belong to the club. So far he has no worries whatsoever.
If our word means nothing because Biden wants to stick with NATO, then we have a problem. I thank G-d that Biden is our President, but I can't help but think that he could, as a private country, at least send them the planes to help themselves. The UK and the US both signed up for the program. We can't just pretend that there is something wrong with the document that we signed. In our hearts, the spirit of the memorandum should be honored. We got something in exchange for that document. We got Ukraine to denuclearize in clear exchange for protection that we are now reneging on.
It's embarrassing, really.
doc03
(35,346 posts)between Ukraine and Russia and/or the US.
honest.abe
(8,678 posts)Ukraine suddenly found itself independent and the third-largest nuclear power in the world. Thousands of nuclear arms had been stationed on its soil by Moscow, and they were still there. In the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to denuclearize completely. In exchange, it would get a security guarantee from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia, known as the Budapest Memorandum.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082172618/why-ukraine-gave-up-its-nukes
honest.abe
(8,678 posts)Looks like NATO is discussing the possibility of intervening.
https://www.ft.com/content/fe80e279-aad8-442a-b4d5-0a4f5e44e7df#post-8229952a-9621-4d67-973a-a55a1079e841
boston bean
(36,221 posts)For text of this two page agreement see here:
http://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/12/13943175580.pdf
doc03
(35,346 posts)HariSeldon
(455 posts)As with most diplomatic agreements, it contains some muddiness about obligations. Russia has definitely violated the terms they agreed in that document. When I skimmed it, it wasn't clear to me whether the USA has an obligation to defend Ukraine up until nuclear weapons are threatened against Ukraine, at which point my reading is that a would then be required to assist Ukraine militarily (under that agreement).
femmedem
(8,203 posts)from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
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 Ukraines 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.
However, it doesn't specify military assistance and the United States does not consider it legally binding, according to Wikipedia:
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[1] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[25][26]
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][26] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[25] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[26] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[27] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security guarantees that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[28] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
honest.abe
(8,678 posts)The Budapest Memorandum
That's good enough for me.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,465 posts)An artful diplomatic agreement written by lawyers that gives the lawyers massive erections, and leaves its innocent victims with that nasty feeling of cold steel between their shoulder blades.
ruet
(10,039 posts)You can bet that if Ukraine did start a nuclear program that agreement would start to look a lot more "legally binding".
PortTack
(32,778 posts)Thing and do another!
I'm glad you said that!! We got something in exchange for worthless promises. This is a lesson to all those that would do business with us in the future.