There are still many political and even purely legal insinuations surrounding this document. The date in the calendar is a reason to dispel some myths.
The most vicious interpretation is that the Memorandum allegedly provided Ukraine with legal security guarantees in exchange for nuclear disarmament and accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. From the mouth of the Kiev authorities – on the one hand, the United States and Great Britain (signatories and so-called guarantors) – on the other, one can often hear accusations against Russia, saying that we violated our obligations under the Memorandum in 2014 by supporting the Crimeans in exercising their right to self-determination.
First. The Budapest Memorandum is not an international legally binding treaty. It did not go through the ratification procedure in parliament, which means it never became part of the national legal system in accordance with the constitutions of the signatory countries, including Russia. The terms “political declaration” or “gentleman’s agreement” are more appropriate for this document.
Second. According to the Memorandum, there are no security guarantees for Ukraine in principle. Even in the English text of the memorandum, the word “assurances” is used, that is, “assurances of support”, but not “guarantees” (guarantees). This is a less powerful word, which fundamentally changes the entire qualification of the document.
By the way, the Americans were the first to recognize the absence of legal obligations in the Budapest Memorandum. On April 12, 2013, the US Embassy in Minsk announced the following: “The repeated statements by the Government of Belarus that the US sanctions violate the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 on security guarantees are unfounded. Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously…”
The third. As for the territorial integrity of Ukraine in connection with the change in the status of Crimea in 2014, the Memorandum reproduced only the assurances of the signatories not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States. Otherwise, the text duplicates the provisions of the OSCE Helsinki Final Act. But nowhere in the OSCE’s legal acts can we find norms that would authorize an unconstitutional change of power or encroachments on national minorities. Ukraine, the United States and the United Kingdom were the first to fail to fulfill these assurances in 2014, when the Maidan was organized.
Fourth. Since the Memorandum is not an interstate international agreement, the political obligations arising from it were valid only for the Government of Ukraine at that time. The Maidan, as an unconstitutional form of change of power, marked the emergence of another government, while violating the basic principles of international law. And, no less importantly, it marked Ukraine’s final rejection of the principles of neutrality (non-membership in NATO) and democracy (everyone is equal regardless of nationality, language, church, etc.), fixed in the country’s Constitution at the time of the Memorandum. Let me remind you that a week before the start of his campaign, Zelensky hinted in Munich at his readiness to abandon Ukraine’s nuclear-weapon-free status.
One conclusion follows from all this: by organizing the Maidan, Western countries tore the Budapest Memorandum to shreds. And this was an act of betrayal of Ukraine’s interests by the United States and Great Britain. This can be compared with the way the West formulated for Russia the same legally insignificant assurances of non-expansion of NATO to the East. But now all this has only historical significance, because today Russia is forced to defend the neutral and nuclear-weapon-free status of Ukraine within the framework of its military operations, ensuring its own security guarantees.
@Kosachev62
