This was the basis for Ukrainian independence i.e. "The Declaration is the basis for a new constitution and laws of Ukraine and determines the positions of the Republic for the purpose of international agreements."
It also contains this provision:
"The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs .................................."
http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/site/postanova_eng/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm
Thoughts?
"Expressing the will of the people of Ukraine"
This is the very first line in that document and sets the tone for the rest of the declaration.
II. Rule of the People
The people of Ukraine are the sole source of state authority in the Republic.
Ultimately, all matters of foreign and domestic policies, including neutrality, are up the people of Ukraine. That would include whether to continue being neutral or not.
10 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidAs a democracy, one would suppose that intent can be overruled by popular demand.
This was the basis for Ukrainian independence i.e. "The Declaration is the basis for a new constitution and laws of Ukraine and determines the positions of the Republic for the purpose of international agreements."
It also contains this provision:
"[b]The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not part ...[text shortened]... ada.gov.ua:7777/site/postanova_eng/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm
Thoughts?
And if so, it’s not a free ticket to be invaded.
10 Mar 22
@vivify saidThen obviously it would be up to the People of other nations whether to honor security assurances made to another nation, correct? And they could decide to not honor them at any time?
"Expressing the will of the people of Ukraine"
This is the very first line in that document and sets the tone for the rest of the declaration.
II. Rule of the People
The people of Ukraine are the sole source of state authority in the Republic.
Ultimately, all matters of foreign and domestic policies, including neutrality, are up the people of Ukraine. That would include whether to continue being neutral or not.
Are you saying international commitments mean absolutely nothing? That stated intentions of nations, even in their founding documents, cannot be relied on at all by other countries?
92.3% of the voters in the Ukraine supported a referendum which adopted the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. That Declaration stated that it was :
"Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine
Which, as already pointed out, said Ukraine would be a "permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs".
Was and is Russia unreasonable in expecting governments of the Ukraine to abide by such provisions?
10 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidIs it a treaty or a declaration?
Then obviously it would be up to the People of other nations whether to honor security assurances made to another nation, correct? And they could decide to not honor them at any time?
Are you saying international commitments mean absolutely nothing? That stated intentions of nations, even in their founding documents, cannot be relied on at all by other countries?
If it’s a declaration, I would suppose it’s internal. And so easily changable by vote (as per my first post).
If it’s actually a treaty, then who are the co-signatures (who’s the treaty with)?
And obviously you can’t single-handedly change a treaty.
10 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidSee my post above.
92.3% of the voters in the Ukraine supported a referendum which adopted the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. That Declaration stated that it was :
"Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine
Which, as already pointed out, said Ukraine would be a "permanently neu ...[text shortened]...
Was and is Russia unreasonable in expecting governments of the Ukraine to abide by such provisions?
And add: if it is a treaty, then Russia would not be wrong to expect Ukraine to abide by it.
And then see my first post and add: Russia should have set about opposing breaking of treaty by regular, diplomatic, means.
@no1marauder saidYou mean like when Russia annexed Crimea? That sort of thing? Russia was the first to break "international agreements" here.
Then obviously it would be up to the People of other nations whether to honor security assurances made to another nation, correct? And they could decide to not honor them at any time?
Are you saying international commitments mean absolutely nothing? That stated intentions of nations, even in their founding documents, cannot be relied on at all by other countries?
All I'm doing is pointing to what the declaration states. The repeating motif is the sovereignty of Ukraine the absolute right to makes its own decisions about foreign and domestic affairs. For example:
The absolute authority of the people of Ukraine is exercised directly through the Republic's Constitution
Such statements, repeated over and over in the declaration, seem to give the people the final say on such matters.
10 Mar 22
@shavixmir saidGood point, I didn't even think of that. A declaration is not a treaty.
Is it a treaty or a declaration?
If it’s a declaration, I would suppose it’s internal. And so easily changable by vote (as per my first post).
If it’s actually a treaty, then who are the co-signatures (who’s the treaty with)?
And obviously you can’t single-handedly change a treaty.
@shavixmir saidYou're making legalistic arguments which I'm not interested in.
Is it a treaty or a declaration?
If it’s a declaration, I would suppose it’s internal. And so easily changable by vote (as per my first post).
If it’s actually a treaty, then who are the co-signatures (who’s the treaty with)?
And obviously you can’t single-handedly change a treaty.
At its beginning, Ukraine stated it intended to be a neutral State and not join any military blocs. Like Western assurances that NATO would not expand westward, such stated intentions were broken.
So both the Ukraine and the West bear some responsibility for the increase in tensions between them and Russia.
10 Mar 22
@vivify saidWhat "international agreement" was that? The one premised on the Ukraine becoming a neutral State and thus receiving security "assurances"? Or the one where Ukraine could violate its own Constitution and violently overthrow its elected President?
You mean like when Russia annexed Crimea? That sort of thing? Russia was the first to break "international agreements" here.
All I'm doing is pointing to what the declaration states. The repeating motif is the sovereignty of Ukraine the absolute right to makes its own decisions about foreign and domestic affairs. For example:
[i]The absolute authority of the people of ...[text shortened]... s, repeated over and over in the declaration, seem to give the people the final say on such matters.
10 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidOh, I agree that both, certainly NATO expansion and Ukrainian laws about Russian and the like are ar least partly responsible for Russia’s actions.
You're making legalistic arguments which I'm not interested in.
At its beginning, Ukraine stated it intended to be a neutral State and not join any military blocs. Like Western assurances that NATO would not expand westward, such stated intentions were broken.
So both the Ukraine and the West bear some responsibility for the increase in tensions between them and Russia.
I’ve said this all along.
However, I’m not sure this declaration is anyway binding in international affairs.
10 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidSo no amendments to a states founding document then. 🤔 Ukraine was relieved of any neutrality commitment when an expansionist Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas
Then obviously it would be up to the People of other nations whether to honor security assurances made to another nation, correct? And they could decide to not honor them at any time?
Are you saying international commitments mean absolutely nothing? That stated intentions of nations, even in their founding documents, cannot be relied on at all by other countries?
10 Mar 22
@vivify saidWhat about the Ukraine Biolab? If they have bioweapons there they are weapons of mass destruction.
You mean like when Russia annexed Crimea? That sort of thing? Russia was the first to break "international agreements" here.
All I'm doing is pointing to what the declaration states. The repeating motif is the sovereignty of Ukraine the absolute right to makes its own decisions about foreign and domestic affairs. For example:
[i]The absolute authority of the people of ...[text shortened]... s, repeated over and over in the declaration, seem to give the people the final say on such matters.
https://www.newsfromtheperimeter.com/home/2022/3/9/471cyvuyrcsk85524mhdm4t89el77h
Nuland admitted there are biolabs in Ukraine. Are they US biolabs? Why are they there?
10 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidThe USA invaded parts of Syria and occupy almost a third of the country. You know, the part of Syria with the most oil.
So no amendments to a states founding document then. 🤔 Ukraine was relieved of any neutrality commitment when an expansionist Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas
Same thing, right?