Talk:Budapest Memorandum

I reverted an edit to the lead. I think the lead should say "terms of the memorandum is seen as broken" not "Obama says the terms of the memorandum is seen as broken", since the latter could just be a case of expressing "he said she said". Given the actual Russian soldiers surrounding the parliament before the new local leader was announced, and the actual Russian military all over Crimea, no reasonable neutral person can disagree that the terms of the memorandum was broken. Thue (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

concerning the recent removals [1] by Emesik. I have re-added and expanded the info in issues section, where unlike the lead we can cover the issue in more detail, from which we can build a mutually agreeable concise version for the lead. --PLNR (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Budapest Memorandum is just a diplomatic statement, not a treaty. It was never ratified by US Senate. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Concur. Did ANYONE ratify it? I also can't find any evidence that this has been registered in the United Nations Treaty Database as required of treaties according to the United Nations Charter. If the original editor can't prove it is a treaty, the open should be edited to reflect that it is NOT a treaty. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Treaties do not cease to be treaties just because the US senate does not ratify them! Treaties under international law are binding, but so are many other documents, from conventions to memoranda. And so are many conventions and customary rules. The Budapest Memorandum is binding under international law.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I refer you to the "Not a treaty" section below, and the quote there by one of the US negotiators, which in part is: "The Budapest Memorandum thus was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee. U.S. negotiators — myself among them — discussed this point in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding." It is not a treaty, and is not binding without US Senate ratification. Rwendland (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well if you read the text of the memorandum, in the very end it says "This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature", no mention of needing a ratification. I think when presidents of different countries sign an agreement, in result of which one of the countries gives up the third nuclear arsenal in the world, it's a "biggy". Of cause the only country that violated this memorandum is Russian Federation, whose actions not only in Crimea but also in Donbass may lead to tragic consequences in the future and maybe even a nuclear war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The US isn't going to get into a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. 'applicable' does not mean 'binding'. nor does it require parties to go to war in the event of invasion. it only says 'seek security council assistence.' as you may know, that would be impossible, because Russia is one of the five states with permanent veto power in the security Council. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks like we have to keep repeating "A Memorandum is not a Treaty"? And therefore, it's not "binding" on anyone. The lede continues to maintain this falsehood, in spite of knowledgeable persons continually repeating the point. Henrilebec (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to this[2]

• The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on 5 December 1994, provided security assurances by its signatories in connection to Ukraine accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
• Beside Ukraine the signatories are fige nuclear-powers Russian Federation, United States of America and United Kingdom with statements by China and France provided the same day.
• The Memorandum gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan as well as Ukraine.

Also it seems that the provided security assurances have issues [3] --PLNR (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Disagree with your first claim. The first reference you cite does not say that the Budapest Memorandums were treaties. They were instead memorandums providing assurances to Ukraine and other countries in connection with their agreement to the terms of a treaty, the NNPT. Matjamoe (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Per MyMoloboaccount and ludahai above, this is not a treaty. One of the U.S. negotiators of the memorandum says this in cite [5] (CNN, Steven Pifer):

"In the early 1990s, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to extend a military commitment to Ukraine— and both felt that, even if they wanted to, the Senate would not produce the needed two-thirds vote for consent to ratification of such a treaty. The Budapest Memorandum thus was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee. U.S. negotiators — myself among them — discussed this point in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding."

I've made further checks:

1. the Ukraine memorandum is not registered with the UN as a treaty, as members of the UN are obliged to do for treaties (by searching treaties.un.org)
2. if treaties are subject to ratification (eg by U.S. Senate), it is normal to have a section of the treaty noting this and describing how the treaty comes into force following ratification; this memorandum has no such section
3. France and China also gave somewhat similar assurances, but did it via separate statements - if this was a treaty this would normally be done by those countries acceding to the treaty

I'll make changes to the article reflecting the fact it is not a treaty. Rwendland (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The tactics has been used more than once that countries/politicians sign an agreement but then do not submit for ratification in their parliaments. That enables them to have their cake and eat it, too, i.e. saying 'we are bound, no, we are not bound'. (US did this with the ICC as far as I remember).

In the US, A President is allowed to do a contract with one other country. If there are more parties, it needs to be ratified by both Houses (TPP, ratified by both Houses but but not signed by President).

1. We need a look at how many signatures there are on the various Budapest documents. As soon as there is more than one besides Clinton, ratification would have been necessary.

2. In which languages are the documents? There is the suspicion that Yeltsin would have signed anything for a bottle of vodka. Was the document in Russian? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:5517:EB5F:E664:942B (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The indication in the existing version of the article (as at 14 June 2015) that the Memorandum does not contain legally binding terms is too categorical. True, the Memorandum does not oblige its parties to use military force in event of the designated "situation" arising. However, the consultation requirement is not so clearly not a legal commitment (apologies for the double negative!). My proposed amendment slightly softens the assertions about the legal (or non-legal) character of the Memorandum. Bear in mind that the Russian Federation and, in respect to its own Memorandum, Belorus later alluded to legally binding commitments in the Memorandum. As to the absence of UNTS registration, this is, famously, not conclusive as to legal status (see what the ICJ said on this in Qatar v. Bahrain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvanian Jurist (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I added a statement to this article [4].

• According to Russian officials, Russia was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.

^[1] In my opinion, it is

• relevant
• on topic
• properly sourced [5]
• properly attributed

It was promptly removed by the old timers because

• undue weight
• has nothing to do with budapest memorandum
• off topic
• not helpful (updated 5/29)
• removed redunduncy (updated 6/14)

I know I am a new editor who does not know all the rules of engagement here, but I decided to ask the wider Wiki community what I am doing wrong here and why these particular editors decided to follow my edits to undo this particular statement. Is it a normal procedure to undo edits of the newcomers around here? Your comments are appreciated, thank you very much. (AnonimEditor (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC))Reply

• Comment Well, the Russian Ministry's statement seems explicitly on topic. The ref above is a WP:PRIMARY source. It would be better to use a secondary source. The Russian statement is, of course, a joke in that Putin has already publicly bragged that he sent in Russian special forces to take Crimea. I think this Russian position should be included in a minor way, perhaps with the responses to their statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the original edit, I cited a secondary source BBC (in Russian). Because that source is in Russian I searched for a source in English and I found Ministry's statement. Since it is a response to the Western statements I thought it would be appropriate to put their response together in the paragraph with Western statements here. I tried to phrase their response in as neutral terms as possible with a proper attribution (as a response, not a statement of fact) (AnonimEditor (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC))Reply

I see no problem with using the BBC as a source. Eiler7 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Comment This seems a bit convoluted.This seems like a pick me scenario. Why should I pick you? Are you just a really nice person?

They say it is not relevent, off topic, and what ever. You say it's on topic and relevent. You then go off on a tangent about being a new editor and someone is out to get you. 3 seperate editors were involved. So please save the drama.

What is missing from your argument is the actual argument part of it. You inserted it. They questioned it. You do have to answer for it. You say it's on topic so make your case. You say it's not undue weight, You say it's relevent, but you don't make a case. I'm sure that's just really how you feel inside and all but that really isn't helpful. Make a case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see that you are missing my point. I made an edit, which is on-topic (Budapest memorandum is in the title of the documents, didn't you see that?), relevant (posed as a reply to Western statements which for some reason are present in this article. do you think a rebuttal by the other side is for some reason not suitable here?) with all the due weight applicable to statements by one of the arguing sides (unless you want this wikipedia article to remain one-sided). Then three other editors deleted the well sourced statement using some made-up un-founded excuses. I have expected them to show up here and actually make the case for removal of the statement, but no-one has.

Clearly, I have made my case. I have yet to see an argument against it and for removal of the well sourced statement (other that some made-up/un-founded "reasons" in the edit summaries). In one of the comments above there was a link to a Wiki policy (primary source) and I have recently read quite a bit on other wiki policies to see if I violated any of them. I haven't, with a possible exception of edit warring. I however found WP:POV that was clearly violated by my opponents here. (AnonimEditor (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

I'm not missing your point at all. You haven't made one. A rebuttal from the otherside would be unecessary because there is nothing to rebutt. Upon my request you have finally responded with an argument but you lack much of one. What you have done is made alot of claims of bad faith on the part of other editors without any justification. Your looking for an argument for it's removal but they are looking for an argument for it's inclusion. Until your half ass response here you really haven't offered one. wp:brd is a cycle often used. Be bold! Revert! Discuss! When I look up on this talk page I fail to see a discussion. This is your first attempt and it's an RFC. It's also not very civil. There's no need to be so dramatic.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This case is closed in my opinion. Yes, you failed to see a discussion here because the other side of this debate failed to participate. Coverage of any controversial situation should be always two-sided, removal of arguments from one side violates neutral point of view (that is a wiki policy if I am not mistaken). I did not assume any bad faith, that was your own interpretation of my intentions (and a very wrong one). Your argument here is basically "I am new, I do not know how to behave here, therefore I must be uncivil." (AnonimEditor (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

If the case is closed move the RFC tag. I failed to see the discussion here because there was no discussion here. No the whole newness part of it is your schtick. Your rude behavoir and accusations make you uncivil. Tell me more about how "old timers" are out to get you because you are new.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am new and yes, I did not know that apparently according to you RFC is some kind of a weapon user use around here against each other just to be rude. I somehow thought that it was a request to a community to provide an advice. Needless to say, your advice is no longer welcome around here if you do not want to be helpful here. Find some other new editor to harrass please. Your "half ass" remark was the only apparent rudeness I could observe in this discussion. (AnonimEditor (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

Also your main argument is that "my argments are not really arguments". How can I possibly accept this as a valid argument against my arguments, may I ask?(AnonimEditor (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

Your arguments aren't arguments. Your argument for this RFC is "They said my edit wasn't relevent but I say it is." "They say I use undue weight but I don't think so." "wp:pov is clearly volated." Strangely this is not much of an argument. For instance if wp:pov was clearly violated you could clearly say how it was violated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that no argument of mine can ever be a true argument. The POV argument was inserted only after I found out about that policy, no thanks to your "helpful" involvement here. Removing my RFC tag under a false pretext was rude indeed. (AnonimEditor (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

Serialjoepsycho, didn't you notice that you attacking a user (does not matter now if the user is new or not) without paying much attention to the content or to the sources that are under question here? Please stop. Also notice that al other participants in this discussion actually paid attention to the actual content and agreed with me about my edit. (AnonimEditor (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

I didn't close the RFC under a false pretext. You indicated that what ever your unclear issue was it was resolved. Attacking users? I'm apart of your conspiracy theory now to? Tell me more about how I am out to get you. I'm sorry I missed where those editors agreed with you. Could you point above where they indicated that on this talk page. No true Scotsman hey? You go off on a rant about Western sources and how other editors are out to get you because your new. Also I'm not apart of what ever drama you are pushing here. I'm not even clear on the details other than you think that other people are out to get you because they edit the article. Perhaps you should reread what you have written. "However, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the Budapest memorandum does not apply to the 2014 Crimean crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis." The sentence I removed states that unnamed Russian officials weren't under any obligations under the Budapest memorandum for the same reasons.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Enough with your tiresome insinuations about my paranoia, conspiracy theories and such. When I requested a comment from other users I asked for help and advice not personal attacks. I asked users to judge my edit, not me. All my arguments here stand on their own, and everyone but you were able to see that. Once again your personal attacks are not welcome here, go harass someone else. (AnonimEditor (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

If you bothered to read the sources, your would be able to see that the statement that you removed was quoted almost word for word from Russian Ministry's statement. Are you saying that "according to Russian officials" was not a proper attribution (if so that would your first almost valid criticism of my edit here)? How would you phrase the statement to properly attribute it to the Russian ministry of foreign affairs then? (AnonimEditor (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

Ok.. Help and advice. Go to the talk page. Start a conversation before you start an RFC. Don't accuse others of bad faith especially before you've made an actual attempt to speak to them.

As far as the content (what your RFC should have been solely about), it is redundant. Unless you are trying to be more specific. But since you offered that unknown attribution that didn't seem to be the case. However to clean up the mess and since claim the second statement can be attributed to the memorandum here's what I would do.

"However, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the Budapest memorandum does not apply to the 2014 Crimean crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis. Russia was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will."

However since the memorandum is a primary source don't be shocked if someone removes this due to a Original research claim. Don't forget to remove the RFC tag.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I have already addressed the primary source concern (see one of my replies above). In the link to the BBC article (a secondary source) this statement is also present (in Russian). I do not think this statement is redundant here because neither Russian ministry nor BBC thought it was redundant. It is also relevant here because it is a reply of Russian Ministry to the Western claims (that are present in this wikipedia article) (AnonimEditor (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

If your claim is the secondary source takes care of the primary source then remove the primary source. Also since your secondary source is non-English you should read WP:NONENG. Be prepared to translate if asked and Machine translation isn't acceptable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the source Statement by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Russia). (AnonimEditor (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

A close translation of following quote from BBC.

Российское дипведомство также заявляло, что Россия не брала на себя обязательства принуждать часть Украины оставаться в ее составе против воли местного населения, а "положения Будапештского меморандума не распространяются на обстоятельства, ставшие следствием действия внутриполитических или социально-экономических факторов".

is

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also claimed that Russia was not under obligation to force a part of Ukraine to remain in Ukraine against the will of a local population and Budapest memorandum did not apply in circumstances caused by internal political and social-economical factors.

I believe I did a pretty good job translating and paraphrasing this quote. (AnonimEditor (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

I don't read Russian. I'll take your word for it. :)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Comment For one thing going to TALK is right, and I think the content is better with the second item there. From an ordinary reader trying to understand, the additional content seems both relevant and helpful to better understand the positions. That they say Crimea is seceding to join Russia says what their position is. The denial of invasion only says what position they disagree with. It would seem better to me to have the position alone rather than the denial alone, but both parts as shown seems the best. Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. For a seecond I thought that going to TALK was one of my mistakes (creating drama was never my intention). I restored the statement and I hope that other editors would comment here before removing it again. (AnonimEditor (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

The quote illustrates well one of the two sides of the discussion of the treaty's relevance to the Crimean annexation. The sheer disingenuousness of Russia equating not invading and annexing part of a sovereign country with forcing a population to remain in that country shows the two sides' different interpretations of good faith, and helps readers to understand the dispute over the treaty's application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.150.32 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Russian economic coercion of Ukraine (with gas etc), invasion of Crimea, annexation of Crimea, and invasion of eastern Ukraine (either directly or by proxy forces) are all clear violations of the Memorandum. Yet the article skirts around that and instead says other countries have violated the treaty, not Russia. That is clear pro-Russian bias, in my view.

The invasion of Crimea cannot be regarded as anything other than a breach of international law and the memorandum. The argument that Russian troops were already in Crimea is so thin as to be unarguable. Certainly Russian sailors were in port cities. But the seizure of those cities, the troops fanning out across the peninsula, additional troops, vehicles and aircraft arriving, the blockading of ports, the closing of airspace, the seizure of government buildings - none of that is consistent with normal peacetime operations in a host country. Imagine if the troops were American, and the host country the UK. Could anyone rationally argue that there was no invasion, or breach of international law, if US forces in the UK had seized control of the country, and "elected" a new PM, literally at gunpoint, as occurred in Crimea? This article needs to be reviewed for pro-Russian bias.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good points. The article needs fixing. Would you like to help? Got any good sources? bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Feodosia events in 2006 could have told everyone who was welcome and who was not. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:5517:EB5F:E664:942B (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty. Treaties are legally binding. Memorandums are not.

There was never a treaty to be broken! 2A02:8109:8C87:B200:218B:D07F:D88E:5F66 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then it is worth also mentioning the US' role in backing the Maidan Coup d'etat, which is a clear violation of the memorandum as well. Your example of US forces in the UK is inappropriate at best; Even factoring in the violent coup d'etat in Kiev, and the coup appointed government having issued orders to the armed forces to march on Crimea (which fully justifies the closure of airspace and blockading of ports), which also resulted in a string of high profile defections, after having already revoked the language rights of the region's dominant ethnic group. There are also several unique factors to take into account being the socio-cultural history and demographic realities of Crimea, the fact that Crimea was an autonomous oblast governed by its own constitution.

Any talk of elections at gunpoint should take care to explain if and how the tens of thousands of pro-Russian protestors in the streets of Sevastopol and Sinferopol were also out and about at gunpoint.

Additionally, any talk of the 'annexation of Crimea' should take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.78.230 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry when you use terms like "us backed coup d'etat", u are clearly a putin troll. First of all there was never a coup d'etat in ukraine, but a mass protests of tens of thousands of ukranians all over ukraine. The acting president Yanukovich was never forced to leave his office, but abounded it voluntary. The majority of ukranian parlament voted that Yanukovich abandoned his office and appointed a temporary president Turchinov until he was replaced by the newly elected Poroshenko.Reply

Also u claim that this was backed by US government. This was never proved. I can easily claim that Russia organized the whole Maidan in order to use it for Crimea's annexation.

There was also no law passed that forbids minority language rights, u are a liar. Also the ukranian government has the right to move its forces how ever it desires, including into Crimea.

U are clearly a Putin payed troll, and it saddens me to see that Wikipedia moderators don't do good enough job from keeping russian propaganda trolls like you out of here.

Furthermore it doesn't matter how many people in Crimea were pro-russian, they can protest how much they want, it still doesn't give Russia to use military force on ukranian land. Still in order to declare an independence from Ukraine there has to be an ukranian approved all-national referendum, and not just a local one. A local referendum doesn't have a legal power to change Crimea's status or borders.

The article remains breken despite a flagrent breach of the Budapest Memorandum worth February 2022 and an abundance of evidence since. The use of Russian FSB, intelligence and cyber criminals has compromised the integrity of many information sources including Wiki. Little needs added them frozen so vandals can't break the entry. Links to other sources within Wiki could then be used to update the war, war crimes and relevant references to specific locations and structures within Ukraine. HuttonIT (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are no US bio labs in Ukraine. 47.197.146.110 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Putin says there are. 2.31.162.124 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Victoria Nuland openly admitted that there was when questioned by congress.

She also tried to scaremonger about how terrible it would be if Russia took control over them because of how exceptionally dangerous samples they had. Considering where C19 probably came from, it seems Russia was a lot better at handling dangerous substances than USA.

Also, Russia has stated that they have enough evidence to take 26 of the bioweapon labs to the Geneva convention and be absolutely certain of convictions. With the other dozen+ they had various levels of evidence, but all of them, the evidence was enough to likely achieve a conviction if taken to a court. Because if nothing else, the gross violations of medical ethics in the research recorded was almost everywhere and plentiful in every lab.

Russia has also stated that they're GOING TO take this to courts. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI, as you probably have noticed, I am slowly adding to this article driven by the accounts of negotiations and events by the Historian of the DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Joseph Harahan, and U.S. diplomat involved with the negotiations (and future United States Ambassador to Ukraine), Steven Pifer. This will be quite a slow process over the next few weeks, and at the end I'll review the additions and trim down where possible.

Before I started this, the article read as if the Budapest Memorandum enabled the de-nuclearization ("As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."), whereas in fact the de-nuclearization was fully agreed before the Budapest Memorandum was first drafted, by eg the previously unmentioned Lisbon Protocol and the Trilateral Statement. I hope slowly to succeed in explaining the genesis of the Budapest Memorandum in its context. I've already read most of the two main sources for background, but am now re-reading them to try to best summarise as I go along.

I'm aware both main sources are U.S. originated, but they seem very good and quite balanced. I'll try to pick up some good Ukrainian and Russian source along the way. Apologies this will all take some time, but it is part-time using large documents. Rwendland (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Rwendland: The Trilateral Statement was an informal statement of intent, not a binding document.^[1] The Lisbon Protocol says The Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the final exchange of instruments of ratification,^[2] by which it means the Budapest Memorandum on Dec 5, 1994. The extent to which the countries agreed before that moment was a bit nebulous. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elephanthunter. Sorry to be slow replying. I've not had any time for WP editing recently (partly the reason for writing my note above), and very little time in the week ahead. Adding this, and studying the sources, took longer than I expected . I agree the Trilateral Statement was a political statement (not legally binding), like the Memorandum I believe. However I think the Trilateral Statement defined the security statements to be in the Memorandum (a promise) - I'll re-read the source and try to write something about that. The Ukrainians I believe arranged that the Memorandum was signed a few minutes before they submitting their instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, effectively linking the two informally - again I'll study the source to say something about that linkage. But I don't think I'll be able to do that this week as I'm away soon for a few days. Rwendland (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"of which Ukraine had physical but no operational control." - does it matter whether the country has operational control? The country can remove the explosive charge and put it into any other rocket, bomb or whatever! So as long as the charge is physically in the country, it is a problem! Who has operational control has no significance! 151.136.33.13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@151.136.33.13: That line is not the whole picture. It was a large technological hurdle at the time, but the article goes on the explain the measures protecting the nuclear devices were not entirely sufficient to prevent Ukrainian circumvention. Operational control was only one aspect of concern. The Ukrainian government also had to factor in other concerns, such as the incredible costs of maintenance and security. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

A memorandum, as a type of document, does not create legal obligations for any of the parties involved. This is explained in detail on the Wikipedia page on memoranda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum

It's important to note that signing a memorandum does not bind the signatories to any legal obligations. So it is odd that the article implies that some signatories are obligated to do anything. 109.43.179.58 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first sentence under the heading "Analysis" claims "Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine 'security assurances' in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." Not only is this false, but it is directly contradicted in the following statements, such as "...unlike guarantees, it [i.e., the Budapest Memo] does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties". In fact, the Budapest Memo only mentions "security assurances from the Russian Federation, in that Russia agrees to refrain from attacking or threatening to attack Ukraine. There is not one word in the Memo that pledges any "security assurances from the US, UK or France (the other 3 signatories), beyond the US and UK (the two permanent members of the UN Security Council) raising the matter of Ukraine's sovereignty and peace to the UNSC. Nowhere is military security on the part of the US, UK or France even hinted at. I am going to change the opening sentence to reflect this reality. Bricology (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Russia agrees to refrain from attacking or threatening to attack Ukraine"

"except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

I think Zelensky bragging about using nuclear weapons at the 2022 Munich conference is a pretty damn blatant cause of selfdefence. Not to mention NY Times recent bragging about how amazingly much CIAs 12 bases on the Russian border achieved through infiltration and SABOTAGE against Russia. And everything else USA has been up to since 2004.

Also, another false information, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine NEVER had nuclear weapons. From the absolute start, those nuclear weapons were ALWAYS under the control of Moscow. Only recent propaganda pretends otherwise. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This may sound silly but I think the first introduction of the memorandum is a bit misleading. If you read that first introductory text, it doesn't appear Ukraine has signed the memorendum. But on the sidebar about it, it is clear Ukraine is a signatory. My recommendation would be to clearly list the signatories even the "obvious" ones. I don't know how to properly write this edit and I'm not really good enough to edit it but if someone could clarify the signatories right at the start of the article I think it would be clearer. Signatories is an important factor of this memorandum and an oblivious reader like me could think that this treaty wasn't signed by Ukraine.

^[1] ~~Tetsuo~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:AFB:2350:A4C1:C7F4:DE5F:B246 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply