Soviet Collapse
As the Cold War began fading into history, the Soviet Union also began to come apart at the seams. One by one, Eastern European nations long under the yoke of Moscow began to wiggle free. First to go of course, were all the members of the Warsaw Pact military alliance.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had all been part of the Russian Empire up to 1917, when they gained nominal independence under the hegemony of Kaiser Wilhelm’s German Empire per the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; then becoming fully independent upon the defeat of Germany soon afterward.
As France fell to German Panzers in June 1940 and Britain braced for an invasion that never came, the Soviet Union occupied and annexed the Baltic states. This action was comparable to what happened to Warsaw Pact nations five years later with the sole difference being the Baltic states were made Soviet national territory.
The remaining Soviet republics were another matter entirely, and to this day none save Ukraine have entirely left the ‘orbit’ of Moscow. This is a reality long forgotten or intentionally ignored by many Western geopolitical experts, historians and most definitely European and American news media.
Ukraine’s nukes
One day after the Dec 25, 1991 resignation of Soviet Pres. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was officially dissolved by vote of the Politburo. New issues immediately arose pertaining to the now fractured remnants of Soviet military spread across the now former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Ukraine inherited a large share of those remnants which included an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
It has to be understood that this day in age was 1991; not 2014 or even 2001. There had not yet been the proliferation of nuclear weapons the world has seen since 1991. At that time, only the United States, Communist China, Soviet Union, Britain and France possessed nuclear weapons. Though, it has been widely believe that Israel has had them since before 1991.
At that time however, the nuclear club was a small and select one and Western powers were very concerned as to whether or not Ukraine would be able to keep her nuclear arsenal firmly under lock and key and not allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists, or the club of rogue nations of the day, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Libya and particularly Iran.
There were also Western concerns as to whether Ukraine could manage the budgets and technical expertise to safely maintain such weapons in view of the fact that they had always been managed by Russian Soviet personnel, rather than Ukrainians.
Ukraine had no other national interest in maintaining a nuclear arsenal aside from what they correctly foresaw as a future threat of a resurgent Russia. This foresight was well founded not only in distant history, but also in the then current Russian bitterness at the loss of control of Crimea along with Ukraine.
Western governments wanted to ease concerns about the security of Ukraine’s portion of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal and the best option viewed at the time, was that those weapons be returned to Russian control. But, to achieve that result a deal would have to be struck to allay Ukraine’s concerns about Russian designs on it’s territory and sovereignty.
Budapest Memorandum: what it is not
The Western solution to the Ukraine nuclear weapons issue, was the Dec. 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by Britain, Russia, the United States and Ukraine which accompanied Ukraine becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum is not a mutual defense pact or treaty; it is not a commitment to defend Ukraine against an attack or invasion by Russia, or any other nation; it is not a commitment to provide intelligence, military or even humanitarian aid in the event of an attack on Ukraine by Russia or any other nation; it does not pledge any nation to come to the defense of Ukrainian borders or national sovereignty in any way, shape or form; nor does it make Ukraine a member or ally of NATO.
For there to be any such commitment, would require an actual treaty of alliance, which would then have to be approved by any legislative processes of the signatory nations, including Ukraine itself. No such treaty has ever even been proposed, much less signed or debated in any of the concerned nations’ legislatures.
Nations other than the United States throughout history have issued what is known as a ‘Guarantee of Independence’. Such a proclamation by Britain with regard to Belgium’s independence was the trip wire that hurled Britain into World War I in 1914, when Kaiser Wilhelm declared war on and invaded Belgium in order to attack northern France.
The Budapest Memorandum is NOT such a guarantee and was never intended to be. The United States Government has not at any time issued any such statement independent of the Budapest Memorandum, nor has the government of any other nation.
Then what was the point of signing it?
The real purpose of the Budapest Memorandum was to get ‘Russian ink’ on a piece of paper acknowledging that Ukraine was not a province or vassal state to be lorded over by the Kremlin. It’s just that simple. Ukraine would not give up it’s share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal until that fear was allayed.
At the time of the 1994 signing, it was foreseen that Ukraine would soon be a member of both the European Union and NATO. The negotiations in Budapest and the resulting agreement were seen as simply the first milestone on the road to permanent military security for Ukraine against Russia behind the shield of NATO.
Pres. Yeltsin’s signature was viewed by the West as acknowledgement of that, recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and a relinquishing of claims to Crimea. The Ukrainians viewed his signature as a bridge on that road to NATO security; not knowing they wouldn’t have yet arrived there twenty years on.
What the document does say is very simple and clear; (the bold underlined italics are that of the author of this Hub)
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America affirm to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
Hub Note: ‘respect’ is the operative word here. Respect does not mean defend or guarantee. A landowner or business respects a neighbor’s property line, but has no obligation to defend it against a house breaking by hoodlums.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America affirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine;
Hub Note: This provision is the crux of the document; as it assures that none of the signatory nations (not just Russia) will attack or invade Ukraine. This was a concern among all at the time, because post-Soviet Era military scenarios anticipated a possible threat of Ukrainian nukes being stolen or seized requiring one or more of the signatories to initiate a military operation into or against Ukraine to prevent such an occurrence.
The remaining provisions in the document refer to not pressuring Ukraine with economic coercion, or launching nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear armed nation, unless such a nation launches a nuclear attack with a previously unknown existing weapon. This latter provision was likely included in the event Ukraine somehow managed to secretly stash one of the orphaned Soviet nuclear weapons.
There is also reference to bringing Ukrainian national security concerns and crises to the UN Security Council. This is being cited by some as a possible trip wire for the United States and NATO to ‘fall’ into a war with Russia. It is pure speculative sophistry, since Russia can and of course did, veto the one toothless resolution which was brought before the UNSC concerning Russian actions in Crimea, and every member of that body knew full well they would.
Pres. Obama’s hand in disarming Ukraine
On 4 Dec. 2009, a joint Declaration was issued by the United States and Russian Federation reaffirming all provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. This declaration was made during ongoing efforts to persuade Ukraine to reduce it’s still rather large and heavily armed conventional land army and air force. Those forces were the last powerful deterrent against Russia.
Russia needs and wants Ukraine in one piece. The Kremlin covets Ukraine’s military and commercial industries which build civil and military products, the list of which is a long one.
The Soviet Union could not have been the military juggernaut it was without Ukraine and it’s large military industry. Vladimir Putin’s Russia cannot today reattain true world power status without it. It is of no use to Putin, if that prize is laid waste in a major military campaign to capture it.
This is why Ukraine’s once nearly 800,000 man army was reduced to under 100,000, its military conscription abolished and much of its heavy conventional weapons and warplanes mothballed with the helping hand of false reassurances of security by the Obama Administration hand in hand with the European Union.
The EU also wanted a militarily weakened Ukraine to more easily lure that nation into the Euro zone via the carrot of NATO security and raid Ukraine’s treasury and cheap labor to prop up their own failed experiment in state central economic planning.
Pres. Obama’s motivations were more insidious. It was no doubt in tune with the cancellation of a missile defense shield for Europe which was to be based partly in Poland.
That announcement was made on September 17, 2009; the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland following the German invasion from the west, sixteen days earlier in 1939.
, Misunderstanding the Budapest Memorandum www.ozeldersin.com bitirme tezi,ödev,proje dönem ödevi