The Budapest Memorandum and the distortions of NATO apologists

[gringo]

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/07/who-can-guarantee-ukraines-security.html#more

     The subject of the "Budapest Memorandum" was discussed today on MOA, linked above.
     This issue is one of those that have been misrepresented and selectively quoted by all Western MSM and government spokespeople. These misrepresentations are then repeated parrot-like by NATO apologists without a critical question or thought entering their minds. I have previously pointed out these "omissions" of facts and misrepresentations when it is brought up by the usual suspects. Still the matter is occasionally raised in snide drive by comments which repeat the same selectively quoted discredited nonsense.
     Steve even raises it in discussions about Crimea. As I have repeatedly stated, the "Budapest Memorandum" is related entirely to the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Budapest happened, not because of concerns of territorial integrity, but because Ukraine were using the Nuclear Warheads that they held on Ukrainian territory after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as a bargaining chip. To be more accurate the Ukrainian regime were using the warheads to "nuclear blackmail" their way to concessions. From the article below;

"A main question for Ukraine since it became an independent state was who or what could potentially guarantee its security.

In the first years after 1991 the Ukrainian government thought that it could secure itself. It had inherited some Soviet nuclear weapons and it tried to bring those to use. But it failed to circumvent the security locks the Russian engineers had integrated into the nuclear warheads.

There was also pressure from the U.S. to get rid of those devices as the Ukraine at that time was prolific in selling its Soviet era weapons to various shady actors around the world.

Ukraine, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was pressed to enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In exchange it got the Budapest Memorandum, a weak promise of non-interference:"

"The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."

     Note the bolded part, Steve.

"Formally Russia has not broken the Budapest Memorandum. It recognized the People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. It signed security agreements with them and then entered the war in Ukraine, which had been ongoing since 2014, under Article 51 - common self defense - of the Charter of the United Nations. Jurists will debate that argument for years but it is not dissimilar to the argument NATO used to justify the violent break-up Yugoslavia."

    Read the full article, Steve. Perhaps browse through the discussion. In ten minutes you will have accessed more information about the Budapest Memorandum than you are currently in possession of by magnitudes. Reliance on western media has meant your discussion of this subject has been reduced to one repeated soundbite on a constant loop.
    But...But... "Ukraine's borders were guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994."

    Read the inconvenient, to your worldview, facts. Don't just drink the Kool Aid on offer from the media and government.
   

   


   

[gringo]

"Formally Russia has not broken the Budapest Memorandum. It recognized the People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. It signed security agreements with them and then entered the war in Ukraine, which had been ongoing since 2014, under Article 51 - common self defense - of the Charter of the United Nations. Jurists will debate that argument for years but it is not dissimilar to the argument NATO used to justify the violent break-up Yugoslavia."

    I made the argument in the "Minsk thread" that Russia had made a solid legal case under Art.51 of the UN Charter. Independent observers from OSCE at the frontline observing the shelling and ceasefire breaches for 8 years. All breaches independently monitored and taken to the UN to place on record. Russia's recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states prior to the SMO, and the recorded breaches and bad faith by Ukraine, gave Russia a robust legal case under Art 51 (UN Charter) to act under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P).
    The "similarities" raised by Bernhard are correct, in as much as both Russia and US/NATO intervened in Ukraine and Yugoslavia using Article 51 and the Responsibility to Protect. The differences also need pointing out however.
    Russia intervened only after 8 years of Ukraine breaching Minsk 1 & 2. This is an undeniable fact, not opinion, as it is admitted by Ukraine govt. and their guarantors(German/French governments). Russia made sure also to ensure that all of this was done via the proper mechanism of using the UN Security Council first to resolve the issues. Russia also made sure to have everything recorded and placed with the UNSC by independent observers, OSCE.
    Russian intervention in Ukraine came only when all diplomatic means had been exhausted and abused by the Ukrainian government and their sponsors.
    What legal cover did NATO have for their "humanitarian bombing" of Yugoslavia? Did they take their "evidence" of genocide to the UNSC?-No
    Did they attempt to get independent peacekeepers or observers involved to observe and acquire the "evidence" of genocide which they could place with the UNSC, in order that all was a matter of official record?-No.
    Did they seek agreements to resolve matters (similar to Minsk Accords)?-No

The NATO intervention was based on the complete abuse of R2P. Some media reports, clearly planted by their own intel agencies, in Western media was all that was required for Western media and governments to invade and bomb Yugoslavia.
    Russian intervention in Ukraine is based on facts that are now a matter of official record and undeniably true.
     NATO intervention in Yugoslavia under the same doctrine is based on planted media reports and lies. The indoctrinated denizens of NATOstan are unaware of these details and nuances. The Rest of the World are perfectly aware of NATO lies and aggression.

[Steve_uk]

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/07/who-can-guarantee-ukraines-security.html#more

     The subject of the "Budapest Memorandum" was discussed today on MOA, linked above.
     This issue is one of those that have been misrepresented and selectively quoted by all Western MSM and government spokespeople. These misrepresentations are then repeated parrot-like by NATO apologists without a critical question or thought entering their minds. I have previously pointed out these "omissions" of facts and misrepresentations when it is brought up by the usual suspects. Still the matter is occasionally raised in snide drive by comments which repeat the same selectively quoted discredited nonsense.
     Steve even raises it in discussions about Crimea. As I have repeatedly stated, the "Budapest Memorandum" is related entirely to the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Budapest happened, not because of concerns of territorial integrity, but because Ukraine were using the Nuclear Warheads that they held on Ukrainian territory after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as a bargaining chip. To be more accurate the Ukrainian regime were using the warheads to "nuclear blackmail" their way to concessions. From the article below;

"A main question for Ukraine since it became an independent state was who or what could potentially guarantee its security.

In the first years after 1991 the Ukrainian government thought that it could secure itself. It had inherited some Soviet nuclear weapons and it tried to bring those to use. But it failed to circumvent the security locks the Russian engineers had integrated into the nuclear warheads.

There was also pressure from the U.S. to get rid of those devices as the Ukraine at that time was prolific in selling its Soviet era weapons to various shady actors around the world.

Ukraine, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was pressed to enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In exchange it got the Budapest Memorandum, a weak promise of non-interference:"

"The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan,[b] "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."[/b] As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."

     Note the bolded part, Steve.

"Formally Russia has not broken the Budapest Memorandum. It recognized the People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. It signed security agreements with them and then entered the war in Ukraine, which had been ongoing since 2014, under Article 51 - common self defense - of the Charter of the United Nations. Jurists will debate that argument for years but it is not dissimilar to the argument NATO used to justify the violent break-up Yugoslavia."

    Read the full article, Steve. Perhaps browse through the discussion. In ten minutes you will have accessed more information about the Budapest Memorandum than you are currently in possession of by magnitudes. Reliance on western media has meant your discussion of this subject has been reduced to one repeated soundbite on a constant loop.
    But...But... "Ukraine's borders were guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994."

    Read the inconvenient, to your worldview, facts. Don't just drink the Kool Aid on offer from the media and government.
   

   


   

I haven't drunk sugary drinks since I was a teenager. It's why I still resemble Kurt Cobain rather than Charles Laughton.

The Budapest Memorandum was concerned primarily with the need to safeguard the residue of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal in Ukraine. However guarantees were given in exchange on the integrity of Ukraine's borders. https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184

Let's not go over the Donbas again. Russia has done all it could to foment discord in Donetsk and Luhansk, including providing weapons, to which the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 attests. https://youtu.be/8pU3KluWRkg

[nugnug]

https://youtu.be/nYsWHVhnU8A

polls about the war