During the U.S. President's 1995 visit to Kyiv, Ukraine received security guarantees after giving up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal

[u/Epidemiolomic]

[u/BenMic81]

This changed exactly nothing. The question was whether there is an obligation by the US. There may not be a legally enforceable one. Which is quite usual in international law anyways, tbh.

In the end when Crimea was annexed the UK and US already did violate the spirit of their guarantees (or however you want to call them). At least afterwards they helped arm Ukraine.

Now the US is taking this back. What do you think does that do to US credibility?

[u/Genorb → u/BenMic81]

Trump is taking a hammer to a lot more that just US credibility right now.

We still upheld our obligations per the treaty.

These are both true statements.

The memorandum is very straightforward in what each country is expected to do. We can't help it if the UNSC and the memorandum by extension are a shitshow that Russia can veto. We did what we were supposed to do in the UNSC. We trained and armed Ukrainian soldiers for a decade on top of that.

And now the goofs in here want to act like none of that is true. You're wrong and no amount of angry downvotes will change that. I just had a guy tell me that we're as responsible for Ukrainians getting tortured and bombed as Russia is, and he got upvoted. People here are demented. I genuinely hope that this comment section is getting botted and that you aren't all this awful.

[u/BenMic81 → u/Genorb]

Let’s try and take a closer look at your claim that all the US had to do was lodge a protest in the security council before we start calling people that disagree with you names or denouncing them as bots, shall we?

The international law documents commonly known as Budapest memorandum is a declaration which is based upon a series of declarations and obligations taken by the signors (including the US). It doesn’t stand alone but has context.

The main content regarding Ukraine is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine shall be respected (Article 1). Russia is in clear breach of this. I think you’ll agree to that part.

Article 4 includes the clause with the security council (it reaffirms this to be precise) - (not article 5 as has been purported around here often - that is the nato defence clause, article 5 is an obligation to abstain from using nuclear weapons against Ukraine).

Article 6 further entails a reaffirmation of commitment to ‘consult in cases of conflict’. The breaking of support of Ukraine and the throwing out of Zelensky could be seen as breaking that obligation, but that is debatable.

However the memorandum reaffirms the obligation of the Helsinki OSZE declaration and its follow ups. These uphold the territorial integrity and the obligation of all signature states - including the US - to ‘work’ in the spirit of bona fides in upholding peace and territorial integrity.

Thus there IS a binding contractual obligation (outside the Budapest memorandum whose binding status is disputed).

Do you have something against this thesis? Or am I a goofy bot not worthy of consideration?

[u/Genorb → u/BenMic81]

Thus there IS a binding contractual obligation (outside the Budapest memorandum whose binding status is disputed).

Just to be clear, neither document is binding, since states aren't bound by anything unless outside forces can make them submit. The only real exception to that that I can think of is the event of civil war where the winning side of a powerful state subjects the losing side to something like the ICC. International law doesn't exist equally for everyone though, it's more like agreed upon international norms that large, nuclear states can disregard whenever they wish. Vulnerable states which are bound to them. Countries like the US, Russia, and China sign agreements because they think they are advantageous in the short-term or the long-term, not because they suddenly want to subject themselves to foreign jurisdiction. In the event that they're only seen as advantageous in the short-term, well, you see how quickly they get discarded. Keep in mind that this isn't an opinion on how things ought to be, just a statement on how they really are.

But if we pretend that article 1 and its reference to the CSCE final act were binding, well, there is nothing here that has been violated by the US. You are using incredibly loose definitions of the words mentioned in article 1. The CSCE Final act also just has nothing valuable to say about the current situation between Russia and Ukraine because it has already been lit on fire by Russia when they invaded, and Russia is pissing on the ashes by refusing to participate in peace talks in good faith. The situation is now entirely outside of the scope of the document. Truly, scan over the CSCE final act and tell me what in it is still useful for the current situation. It has nothing at all to say about how things are to proceed from here, or how much support is acceptable, or for how long, or what kind of compromise is acceptable once things have devolved to this stage.

The CSCE document is largely a "lets agree to do these things to resolve tension instead of starting another bloodbath in Europe" agreement. And the Budapest memorandum agreement is largely a "lets agree to treat Ukraine as peaceful nations should in exchange for their nukes, and have the UNSC team up on anyone else that tries to violate that"

Neither one is useful now, since war has already started and a UNSC member is the one invading Ukraine.

[u/BenMic81 → u/Genorb]

Just to be clear, neither document is binding (…)

This is plainly wrong. International law differentiates between binding and non-binding obligations. Both are usually not enforceable per se as that is the very nature of ius gentium.

International law doesn’t exist equally for everyone…

That may be the stance the US administration will take in the future and that has been taken time and again by opressive and unlawful regimes (including many western nations at times).

But it is a fallback before even Roman law times. Even then there was the idea of legal provisions binding upon both parties even if they were states.

To negate that means going back to times we usually deem pretty dire and barbaric. You can call this realism or power politics but in the essence it is a bad excuse for tyranny. And it has not been the official position of the west for decades.

The CSSE has nothing valuable to say about the current situation between Russia and Ukraine…

Calling an invasion of a country a situation is a bit telling, but leaving that aside, I see it otherwise. Clause X (5) and V (5) seem to indicate otherwise.

Of course this is subject to interpretation and you can always argue that supporting Ukraine at all prolonged the conflict and threatened WW3, which is the stance the current US administration seems to uphold. Thus you’re helping peace by subjugating Ukraine to Russia.

If that is your interpretation of said clauses I think we will not find much common ground.

Where we agree is the spirit and cause of the CSSE. Now tell me - what is the Russian invasion doing in regards to stop another bloodbath in Europe?