The Budapest Memorandum Revisited

[AkMike]

This is a long yet interesting article that may pertain to the peace negotiations going on today.

http://strataforum.org/the-budapest-memorandum-revisited/

[Gator]

An example of why a country will be hesitant to stop its nuclear weapons program.  I wonder if Russia would have been so aggressive if Ukraine still had its nukes.

[AC]

An example of why a country will be hesitant to stop its nuclear weapons program.  I wonder if Russia would have been so aggressive if Ukraine still had its nukes.

That question is a no brainer and the answer is a resounding no.

[JayH]

This is a long yet interesting article that may pertain to the peace negotiations going on today.

http://strataforum.org/the-budapest-memorandum-revisited/

Yes-- and about time this was discussed seriously. For nearly a year some have been constantly referring to this agreement-- and it has been constantly mentioned in many articles.
Quoting--
"Until now the current US Administration undertook a cautious position with regards to the Budapest Memorandum, downplaying its significance.  Under present circumstances it is no longer possible to maintain this position without undermining not only the US credibility in the world, but also the collective efforts aimed at nuclear non-proliferation.  Instead of shying away from the Budapest Memorandum, it makes sense to revisit it and to reverse the current position.  This will be an important signal to the world that the US confronts its high responsibility with regards to its commitments and leadership role, and this will not only strengthen the US credibility, but will also result in many other advantages, most importantly putting an end to the Russian aggression against Ukraine.  The Budapest Memorandum provides the legal and moral basis for the US to provide Ukraine with encompassing assistance, including military assistance."

[AkMike]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned that France and China also signed docs similar to this one giving assurances to Ukraine.

[JayH]

Reading some of the detail again explains why I have always been mystified why there was not an immediate response when Russia invaded Crimea. For those who have scoffed at my comments on the Crimea being returned to Ukraine--make sure you keep watching over the next year!! It is no accident that this document is once again-or should I say now at centre stage-it will be the basis of how Russia will be confronted with a dose of reality.

It is also well-known and well-documented that Ukraine was persuaded by the US (supported by the UK) to give up its large nuclear arsenal, the single most solid guarantee of its security, territorial integrity and importance in global affairs, in exchange for guarantees of its sovereignty and borders.  The US, which spearheaded the effort to take the nuclear arsenal away from Ukraine and transfer it to Russia, publicly undertook the responsibility for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.

[ML]

  The Budapest Memorandum provides the legal and moral basis for the US to provide Ukraine with encompassing assistance, including military assistance."

This is totally false.

This was hashed out here several times in the past.

USA only signed to do two things:

1) Not violate Ukraine's borders.
2) Come to aid of Ukraine if it were attacked by nuclear weapons.

I hope USA does help Ukraine, but nothing in Budapest Memo obligates us to do so.

Ukraine leaders at the time did not drive a very good bargain.

They should have insisted that the wording say that each of the signatory countries would come to the aid of Ukraine if its borders were violated by any country using any means.

[JayH]

ML--there is a difference between an obligation-- and  a legal and moral basis  to assist.
I am confining my comment here to the words you quoted -- and used.

But-reading more
Quoting
  "The technical and legal intricacies of its language can be discussed ad nauseam, but nothing can change its bottom-line: the three signatories – the US, the UK and Russia – confirm and reaffirm “their commitment to Ukraine in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”.

And from the notes attached to the document itself--
Quote-
"The leaders confirmed that CSCE commitments in the area of human rights,
economics and security represent the cornerstone of the common European security
space, and that they help ensure that countries and peoples in this space are
not subjected further to the threat of military force or other undesirable
consequences of aggressive nationalism and chauvinism."

[lordtiberius]

The Budapest Memorandum will live in Anglo-American history as something to be ashamed of.  We have destroyed nonproliferation forever and revealed ourselves to be an vapid self absorbed myopic degenerates more concerned with selfies than corpsies.

[AC]

The Budapest Memorandum will live in Anglo-American history as something to be ashamed of.  We have destroyed nonproliferation forever and revealed ourselves to be an vapid self absorbed myopic degenerates more concerned with selfies than corpsies.

Speak for your self.  Or should I say selfie.

[lordtiberius]

Speak for your self.  Or should I say selfie.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kim+kardashian&tbm=nws

[Photo Guy]

The Budapest Memorandum:
Hollow Words

[lordtiberius]

The Budapest Memorandum:
Hollow Words

Sad but true and Ukrainians are dying because they believed us.

[AC]

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kim+kardashian&tbm=nws

 

[lordtiberius]

AC v AC

Speak for your self.  Or should I say selfie.

[JayH]

Time to consider again. The potential changing face  of how Russia will behave is on the agenda.


Point by point, Russia’s violations of Budapest Memorandum


Russia is clearly in violation of its legal obligations under the Budapest Memorandum, but the Western powers – despite Kyiv’s intimations to the contrary – are not. Under the Budapest Memorandum – signed on Dec.5 1994 – Ukraine agreed to surrender control of its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. In 2009 moreover, the U.S. and Russia agreed that the “assurances recorded in the Budapest Memoranda will remain in effect.”

Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argues that the Budapest Memorandum “contains only one obligation—i.e., not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine,” this is patently false.

Clause One commits the signatories to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” In Clause Two meanwhile, the parties “reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” It’s clear that Moscow’s use of military force in Crimea as well as its hybrid war in the Donbas constitute violations of both Clauses One and Two. Indeed, even if one takes at face value Moscow’s fanciful claims that it plays no role in the Donbas, President Vladimir Putin himself has openly admitted the deployment of Russian troops to Crimea.

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/josh-cohen-point-point-russias-violations-budapest-memorandum.html

[JayH]

Amazing how observation in articles written some time ago can have so much relevance some years later.

Washington should do more. It is time to provide the Ukrainian military defensive arms, such as light anti-tank weapons. That would raise the costs to the Russian army of any further fighting and help deter it. Washington should also be prepared, if Moscow does not alter course and facilitate a peaceful settlement, to work with Europe to impose additional economic sanctions.

These are actions that the United States owes Ukraine for giving up the nuclear arms on its territory. In 1994, Washington wrote Kyiv a check for U.S. support in the Budapest memorandum—albeit hoping that it would never be cashed. Unfortunately, it has.


December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future.



The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, nuclear arms lay in sites scattered across the former Soviet republics. Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including some 1,900 strategic nuclear weapons designed to strike the United States.

Nothing in the post-Soviet space commanded more attention from the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations than making sure that the Soviet Union’s demise did not increase the number of nuclear-armed states. Washington brokered with Kyiv and Moscow the terms under which Ukraine agreed to eliminate the strategic missiles, missile silos and bombers on its territory and transfer the 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia for disassembly.

A key element of the arrangement—many Ukrainians would say the key element—was the readiness of the United States and Russia, joined by Britain, to provide security assurances. The Budapest memorandum committed Washington, Moscow and London, among other things, to “respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” and to “refrain from the threat or use of force” against that country.

http://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/12/04/the-budapest-memorandum-and-u-s-obligations/

[JayH]

Given how some see that historic alliances and alignments -- and OBLIGATIONS-- are  of little consequence when it comes to honouring the article is very current.

Budapest memorandum: non-proliferation diplomacy twenty years later

Almost immediately after signing the “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (commonly referred to as the Budapest Memorandum) in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, then-President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma (1994-2005) commented, “If tomorrow, Russia goes into Crimea, no one will raise an eyebrow. Besides… promises, no one ever planned to give Ukraine any guarantees.”1

Reading these words today makes them seem almost prophetic; in 2014, twenty years after the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, Russia annexed Crimea after a stealth military operation and began infiltration of two regions of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is now the source of much geopolitical tension in Europe, causing structures such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to shift their positions on a number of issues and security policies. The United States is also heavily invested in the resolution of the conflict(s) between Ukraine and Russia, as an emerging aggressive power coming from Russia threatens world security and the world order.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/12/05/budapest-memorandum-non-proliferation-diplomacy-twenty-years-later/

[JayH]

Russia-Ukraine sea clash puts spotlight on 1994 agreement

Washington paid half a billion dollars for Ukraine to pass 5,000 nuclear weapons to Russia to be dismantled after brokering the deal.


In 1994, Ukraine agreed to dismantle this stockpile in return for a promise from Russia that the country wouldn't be attacked.

But after Russian forces fired at and seized three Ukrainian naval vessels on Sunday, Kiev has pointed to this deal and suggested that the U.S. and Europe should do more to protect it against the vastly superior Russian military.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-sea-clash-puts-spotlight-1994-agreement-n941601?fbclid=IwAR3l0TxRsdC-ZtLtk0UmUxMDGOuXBf-I5CU-qc07qHPf4sdAgZLEtPmQH-s

[msmob]

But after Russian forces fired at and seized three Ukrainian naval vessels on Sunday, Kiev has pointed to this deal and suggested that the U.S. and Europe should do more to protect it against the vastly superior Russian military.

JayH

After the GRU co-ordinated a coup in the autonomous Republic of Crimea - THAT was the time to act on the breach by the Kremlin   ( which they 'claim' was made 'null and void' by the 'non legal' removal of Yanu' .....)

'We' proved we would not act to help Ukraine then and Moscow knows it ..... 

[JayH]

The difference here is that this  a clear outright attack on Ukraine --without the denials and confusion that bought Russia time previously.

The disgrace is countries that participated  in the removal of nuclear weapons and the disposal of a huge number of armaments  have chosen to use the semantics to ignore what should have been their obligations .

It has been -- and is a pathetic response.

Ukraine attempted to become a good world citizen -- and in it's moment of need -is left to it's own devices with a lot of useless words.

[msmob]

The difference here is that this  a clear outright attack on Ukraine --without the denials and confusion that bought Russia time previously.

WHO believed the "local defence forces", BS ....certainly not you, me or western govts..

The disgrace is countries that participated  in the removal of nuclear weapons and the disposal of a huge number of armaments  have chosen to use the semantics to ignore what should have been their obligations .

Agreed - so what makes you think it will be any different, now ?

Ukraine attempted to become a good world citizen -- and in it's moment of need -is left to it's own devices with a lot of useless words.

...it is still attempting - but has corrupt oligarchs and leadership, still and a certain nation happy to ensure instability

[JayH]

I wonder how differently the western world would be looking at Ukraine today and in 2014 if it was still holding Nuclear weapons?What would that view be if Ukraine has Nuclear weapons again?
Ukraine, as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan, obtained security assurances from the NPT depositary states in the now-infamous Budapest Memorandum signed on December 5, 1994 (see Budjeryn 2014). France and China extended similar assurances in separate statements.
 At the time, Ukrainian leaders knew full well that these assurances were not the legally binding guarantees they sought. This was not for the lack of trying on Ukraine’s part: negotiations on security guarantees had proceeded since mid-1992, but Ukrainians found it virtually impossible to exert from the United States the kind of security commitments it pledged to its NATO allies and strategic partners.
 Russia would agree to recognize Ukraine’s borders only within the borders of the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a condition Ukraine refused to accept and which was eventually lifted in the Budapest Memorandum.
After the signature of the Memorandum, Ukraine’s first president Leonid Kravchuk stated: “If tomorrow Russia goes into Crimea, no one will even raise an eyebrow” (The Moscow Times 1994).

Was Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament a blunder?


By now, it is a well-known story: in the early 1990s, Ukraine surrendered the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union in exchange for security assurances from nuclear weapons states, which Russia glibly violated by annexing Crimea and fueling the war in eastern Ukraine. Unquestionably, Russia’s breach of its security commitments to Ukraine has regrettable consequences for the international nonproliferation regime and international security order more broadly.

Yet, behind the near-universal and well-deserved opprobrium of Russia’s aggression, the story of Ukraine’s denuclearization has gelled, in Ukraine and elsewhere, into a facile narrative that omits important facts. According to this narrative, Ukrainian leaders were naïve, easily succumbed to the pressure from the West and Russia, and surrendered Ukraine’s mighty nuclear arsenal for nothing but empty promises. Importantly, with the benefit of hindsight, this narrative implies that Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament was a stupid mistake, and had Ukraine not surrendered its nuclear weapons, Russia would have never invaded; for, as one of the contributors to an earlier issue of this journal put it, it would now be a “much-feared nuclear power” (Umland 2016).

http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/12/06/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament-budapest-memorandum/