Go back
Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine

Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine

Debates

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@shavixmir said
It’s not, as far as I can tell, the breaking of an agreement that’s the issue, more the expansion Eastward at all.

As for breaking an agreement: that is false. There was no agreement. Assurances were given though (making it a quagmire of a topic).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/
I agree it is a quagmire.

This is why matters of this importance must be put in writing in an agreement. Especially considering that there will be changes in leadership, regimes, etc. going forward.

"We were led to believe" or "He said this and she said that" don't work. Show me the agreement.

Whether or not is was wise for NATO to expand East and what affect this has had on Russia is certainly debatable and I'm not 100% sure of this myself. I'm just suggesting we not make definitive statements in this debate that NATO definitively broke it's promise. In order to agree with that premise I need to see an agreement in writing signed by both parties. Unfortunately it doesn't exist.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Are you seriously discussing the validity of someone saying "in perpetuity" and how bound future generations are of the commitments politicians made before them?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
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?
''Peace in our time,''
........Treaty's like promises, were made to be broken,''

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@vivify said
1) Putin's stated reason for invading Crimea was allegedly to protect Ethnic Russians from “far-right extremists”. Russia invented its own reason for invading that had nothing to do with violating any "international agreements".

2) What "international agreement" was broken when their president was removed?

There was no "agreement" broken when Russia annexed Crimea.
Just to be clear, I meant there was no agreement broken by Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea. Therefore, Russia has no right to complain about NATO when Russia invades as it sees fit.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
Please. Ukraine had been seeking NATO membership for at least a decade before the events of 2014.
Please Ukraine can SEEK NATO or any other alliance it chooses but ut was absolutely certain that it wasn’t getting NATO membership any time soon. The idea that other sovereign states have get the approval from a regime like Putins before they join an alliance or an economic bloc.
Better to just keep pushing armaments into Ukraine so they can hold their sovereign territory and reduce Russia to being China’s poodle in the west. It’s looking like china knew about the invasion at least two days before it happened and sent a memorandum to its state news outlets to keep in lockstep with the Kremlin narrative. There’s a bigger game afoot here and Ukraine is going to be the first piece taken off us board.
You’ve displayed an incredibly chauvinistic attitude toward Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Kremlin is trying to establish de facto control of Eastern Europe and challenge nato on behalf of its fellow authoritarian neighbour in the east.
If Russia does not pay a massive economic and strategic price for this mass murder of Ukrainians the Taiwanese will be in the cross hairs next.
Putin is an ex KGB operative, unfortunately there is no such thing as an EX KGB operative.

2 edits
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@vivify said
From the LA Times link:

According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”
Key word being "could" and as I read this comment from Baker in other places it appears he posed it as a question. This does does not constitute an agreement or even a promise.

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

I'm not sure what Gorbachev's answer was but looking at his quote that I posted earlier it appears he did not ask for NATO to commit to not expand further east.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-2

I guess I am 'lurking' on this thread, one of the best ones I have seen on the Forum. A very informed group indeed. I am not as well-informed to comment, but enjoying the comraderie.
BUDMO!!!!

Vote Up
Vote Down
-2

@ullr said
I agree it is a quagmire.

This is why matters of this importance must be put in writing in an agreement. Especially considering that there will be changes in leadership, regimes, etc. going forward.

"We were led to believe" or "He said this and she said that" don't work. Show me the agreement.

Whether or not is was wise for NATO to expand East and what affect this ha ...[text shortened]... emise I need to see an agreement in writing signed by both parties. Unfortunately it doesn't exist.
It's irrelevant goal post moving to say NATO itself didn't make a binding agreement not to move east. The documentary evidence makes clear that leaders of the most powerful nations in the alliance, particularly the US, UK and Germany did make such assurances to entice the USSR to allow German reunification and to loosen its grip on Eastern Europe. The Russians having kept their part of that bargain to their strategic detriment understandably feel double-crossed that the West did not keep to theirs.

And since NATO membership requires unanimous consent of existing members, at the very least the countries that gave such assurances acted in a duplicitous manner by later supporting membership for Eastern European nations.

6 edits
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
It's irrelevant goal post moving to say NATO itself didn't make a binding agreement not to move east. The documentary evidence makes clear that leaders of the most powerful nations in the alliance, particularly the US, UK and Germany did make such assurances to entice the USSR to allow German reunification and to loosen its grip on Eastern Europe. The Russians having kep ...[text shortened]... ssurances acted in a duplicitous manner by later supporting membership for Eastern European nations.
In order to agree with you I would have to agree that the leaders of the USSR were that gullible and naive to not require some sore of binding agreement. Neither Russia nor NATO kept their part of the bargain because there was no bargain to keep.

You would think that NATO's publicly stated open door policy would be a clue.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

If Russia had a problem with this open door policy then they should have made an agreement when they had a chance rather than now resting upon a flimsy .... yeah but we were misled .... argument.

I'm still open for actual hard evidence that there was a promise/agreement. Your opinion, while your entitled to it, doesn't qualify when it comes to matters this important.

2 edits
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

For anyone that cares the agreement between NATO and Russia signed in 1997 by Boris Yeltsin is here:

https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/media/59451/1997_nato_russia_founding_act.pdf

There are so many pertinent items in this agreement and this one among others stands out:

"respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and
their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the
inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in
the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents;"

If anyone violated an agreement or broke a promise, clearly it is Russia.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@ullr said
In order to agree with you I would have to agree that the leaders of the USSR were that gullible and naive to not require some sore of binding agreement. Neither Russia nor NATO kept their part of the bargain because there was no bargain to keep.

You would think that NATO's publicly stated open door policy would be a clue.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212 ...[text shortened]... . Your opinion, while your entitled to it, doesn't qualify when it comes to matters this important.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
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?
Is Ukraine still a Soviet Socialist Republic?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
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.
Does Russia bear any responsibility for breaking the signed Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
"Was and is Russia unreasonable in expecting governments of the Ukraine to abide by such provisions?"

the russian supporter asks if russia is unreasonable while russia is bombing childrens hospitals...GTFOH
And who was a Russian supporter when Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

Hypocrite.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
You're making legalistic arguments which I'm not interested in.
That would be the first time in your life.

Stop quibbling about the legalistic apologies for an attempted genocide.