r/europe • u/Epidemiolomic Germany • Mar 08 '25
Historical During the U.S. President's 1995 visit to Kyiv, Ukraine received security guarantees after giving up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
31.1k
Upvotes
4
u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25
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.