Giving up nuclear weapons.

[Renauda]

@George-K

”Ukraine abandoned the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world” for “security guarantees” promised by the U.S.””

That’s not quite accurate. The US paid Ukraine huge sums in direct foreign aid and technical assistance for it to give up those nukes. The US did not provide any security guarantees and nor was it obliged to in the Budapest Accord and MOU signed between The US, UK, France, Russia, Ukraine,Belarus and Kazakhstan. What the US, UK and France did agree to was act on Ukraine’s, Belarus’ and Kazakhstan’s behalf with the UN Security Council in the event they are the target of any unprovoked “third party” aggression.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:
Budapest Accord

https://www.treatylaw.org/budapest-accord-treaty/

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 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.
3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, 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.
4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

#2 seems pretty explicit: "Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity ... of Ukraine."

[Renauda]

@George-K

There is no security guarantee contained in there that obliges the US to do anything in the event of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Certainly no military obligation to come to Ukraine’s assistance. At the very least diplomatic support. At the most the supply of defence technologies and economic sanctions. All of which the US has been doing since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

So I would argue that the US has lived up to its obligations albeit inconsistently and reactively. No coherent policy that would enable it to force Russia to listen and take a step back. This has always enabled the Kremlin to steer the events and the diplomacy around Ukraine as it wishes.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

@George-K

There is no security guarantee contained in there that obliges the US to do anything in the event of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

True. But it clearly states that the signatories will not use force against Ukraine.

Ah, well, it's just a piece of paper.

[Jolly]

See above...

[George K]

Also, from what you say @Renauda , it seems that the foreign secretary has a misunderstanding of the treaty as well.

[Renauda]

@George-K

My first sentence was that his statement was not quite accurate. I meant it too.

[George K]

@Renauda that was my point in my remark just above your latest.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

Also, from what you say @Renauda , it seems that the foreign secretary has a misunderstanding of the treaty as well.

Much more likely that he has a full understanding, but would prefer to twist to his needs…

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in Giving up nuclear weapons.:

Much more likely that he has a full understanding, but would prefer to twist to his needs…

Such a cynic you are.

[Jolly]

Positively slavic...

[Larry]

The one who promised to not use military force against Ukraine was Putin. His actions make him a war criminal.

[Renauda]

@Larry

I agree.