 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Please forgive my possible ignorance and over simplifying this, but I've just listened to a podcast where a gentleman was explaining about this 1994 treaty, in which Ukraine returned Nuclear weapons to Russia, in return for a guarantee that Ukraines borders as they stood then were to remain as they are. In 2014 Russia - or should I say Putin, went against this treaty with the annexation of Crimea, and has now violated it again.
What are the normal ramifications of violating a treaty? I understand that Putin has all but stated that he does not recognise this treaty, but that aside, is it normal for treaties that are violated to be matched with sanctions on the violators? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oAnCouple
over a year ago
Streatham |
The devil is in the details:
Before agreeing to give up this nuclear arsenal, Kyiv sought three assurances.
First, it wanted compensation for the value of the highly-enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads, which could be blended down for use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Russia agreed to provide that.
Second, eliminating ICBMs, ICBM silos, and bombers did not come cheaply. With its economy rapidly contracting, the Ukrainian government could not afford the costs. The United States agreed to cover those costs with Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance.
Third, Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of nuclear arms.
The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.
The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have.
Ironically the only country to give up their nuclear weapons without any guarantees or payments of any kind was South Africa.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Issue%20Brief%20No%203--The%20Breach--Final4.pdf |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The devil is in the details:
Before agreeing to give up this nuclear arsenal, Kyiv sought three assurances.
First, it wanted compensation for the value of the highly-enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads, which could be blended down for use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Russia agreed to provide that.
Second, eliminating ICBMs, ICBM silos, and bombers did not come cheaply. With its economy rapidly contracting, the Ukrainian government could not afford the costs. The United States agreed to cover those costs with Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance.
Third, Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of nuclear arms.
The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.
The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have.
Ironically the only country to give up their nuclear weapons without any guarantees or payments of any kind was South Africa.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Issue%20Brief%20No%203--The%20Breach--Final4.pdf"
Thanks for this information, as said in my OP, I'm probably slightly ignorant of the issue, only listened to the gentleman's take on the issue, and haven't had much time to read up on it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
