Budapest Memorandum 1994 history of the development of the conflict. Nuclear war becomes possible

Today, relations between the once close fraternal republics of Ukraine and Russia are very complex and tense. They especially aggravated after the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the creation of two self-proclaimed republics - Lugansk and Donetsk - in the spring of 2014. In connection with these events, Ukraine and representatives of other countries accuse Russia of non-compliance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. This is exactly what we're talking about we'll talk in our article.

Essence of the memorandum

Let's look at the essence of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. This document concerns security guarantees for Ukraine in connection with the fact that it has joined the treaty providing for non-proliferation nuclear weapons(hereinafter referred to as the Non-Proliferation Treaty). This agreement came into force on March 5, 1970, its participants are almost all independent states. This agreement has not been signed by Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan.

The Budapest Memorandum is an interstate act that guarantees compliance with the provisions of the above treaty and a number of other documents on the non-use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine as a state that does not possess nuclear weapons. Who is a party to this agreement? The Budapest Memorandum was signed on December 5, 1994 by the leaders of Ukraine, the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Entry into force

As for the date of entry into force of the memorandum, today this issue is debatable. On the one hand, the document directly defines the beginning of its validity, this is the moment of its signing. On the other hand, Russia objects to this, because for it to come into force the Budapest Memorandum must be ratified in the Russian parliament. Therefore, the Russian Federation considers this act legally untenable.

Unlike the above four states, China and France ( nuclear powers), parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, did not sign the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. But at the same time, they made statements that they provide guarantees similar to those set out in it.

Basic provisions

Before the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine committed itself to removing all its nuclear weapons, doing so within the specified time frame. The USA, England and Russia, in turn, took on such responsibilities as:

1. Respect for sovereign rights, independence and Ukrainian borders, consistent with those enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Agreement.
2. Refrain from threats of force, as well as from its use against the integrity of the territory and independence of Ukraine in politically. Non-use of any type of weapons against this country, with the exception of the needs of self-defense and other purposes consistent with the UN Charter.
3. Refraining from coercion by economic means, which is aimed at subordinating the exercise of Ukraine’s sovereign rights to its interests and thereby ensuring various kinds of advantages for itself.
4. The desire for the immediate implementation by the UN Security Council of actions aimed at providing Ukraine (as a state that does not have nuclear weapons) with assistance in the event that it turns out to be a victim of aggression or the object of a threat of such aggression, involving the use of nuclear weapons.
5. Non-use of nuclear weapons to Ukraine as a state participating in the non-proliferation treaty and not having one. The exception is cases when there is an attack on themselves, on their (depending on them) territory, armed forces, allied forces together with a state that has nuclear weapons.

Discussion about legal status

As mentioned above, the question of whether the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is binding for its parties, Ukraine and Russia, is understood differently.

According to V. Ryabtsev, who took part in the preparation of this document from the Ukrainian side, there was no talk of its ratification in 1994, since the text itself already states that it acquires legal force from the date of its signing. At that moment, the prevailing understanding was that the memorandum was an international treaty that presupposed the unconditional implementation of its provisions by the participating countries.

According to V. Ryabtsev, a different approach of the Russian Federation to the issue of the status of the memorandum was clearly manifested in 2003, when a conflict related to the island of Tuzla occurred. Then Russia in Kerch Strait a dam was built to this island. According to analysts, this was done with the aim of putting pressure on Ukraine to regulate the status of Sea of ​​Azov, as well as the Kerch Strait.

Further clarification of status

Due to the uncertainty about the meaning and mandatory implementation of the Budapest Memorandum in 2009, representatives of the Ukrainian side proposed convening a conference of an international nature with the aim of preparing an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine’s security and replacing the existing memorandum with it. It was proposed to involve those countries that signed the previous agreement and other significant players in big politics to participate in this event.

In 2010, a review conference was held dedicated to the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to representatives of the Ukrainian side, from the discussions that took place within the framework of the work of one of its subcommittees, it became clear that only those treaties that have been ratified by the states that signed them should be considered binding. As for V. Ryabtsev, he expresses his disagreement with this interpretation.

Compliance with the memorandum during the Crimean events

On March 1, 2014, Russian President V.V. Putin, in connection with the crisis events in Crimea, received permission from the Federation Council to use Russian armed forces on Ukrainian territory. The justification for these actions was the current extraordinary situation, which threatened the lives of our compatriots living there, as well as the military stationed there in full accordance with the international agreement.

Despite the fact that, as V.V. Putin later commented on the situation, Russia was ready for a very unfavorable development of the event, including putting on alert nuclear forces(although it assumed that this would not happen), in reality not a single shot was fired, which does not allow us to say that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum.

Memorandum and conflict in Donbass

After conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine in April 2014 between its armed forces and rebel groups (whose ranks were mainly supporters of the two self-proclaimed republics - Luhansk and Donetsk), Russia was again accused of violating the Budapest Memorandum.

The USA, Ukraine, and some other states make claims to it that regular fighters are fighting on the side of the rebels. Russian army, weapons and financial support are being supplied. Russian leadership denies these facts, for which to date no evidence of these accusations has been presented to the international community. Despite this, Ukrainian The Verkhovna Rada On January 27, 2015, she called the Russian Federation an aggressor state.

Lavrov's opinion

On May 1, 2015, at a conference reviewing the actions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Ukraine had lost territorial integrity as a result of the complex processes that occurred within it. Russia, however, was not bound by any obligations to force parts of Ukraine to remain part of this country, contrary to the will of the majority of the people inhabiting them.

Later, S. Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, said that Russia did not violate the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. After all, Russia’s only obligation included in this document is the obligation not to use nuclear weapons or threats to use them against Ukraine. There was no threat or use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

Position of the Ukrainian authorities

What does he think? Ukrainian side, Russian policy in Crimea and Donbass is carried out in violation of the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. On March 1, 2014, the representative of Ukraine to the UN, Yu. Sergeev, noted that the unanimous approval by the Federation Council of the Russian Federation of the use in Crimea military force in response to a request from President V.V. Putin is evidence that Russia is not fulfilling its obligations. Indeed, in accordance with them, it must refrain from using force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine as one of the guarantor states.

On December 5, 2015, A. Turchynov, who was then secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, said that it was pointless to disarm Ukraine and reproached Western countries in failure to comply with the memorandum. As an example, he cited their refusal to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.

Russia's position

Russia officially rejects all accusations of violating the Budapest Memorandum. On March 4, 2014, Russian President V.V. Putin expressed the opinion that if the events associated with Euromaidan are qualified as revolutionary, then it follows that a new state has been formed on the territory of Ukraine, regarding which Russia has no treaty obligations .

On March 19, 2014, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United States of violating the provisions of the memorandum and European Union who came out in support of the opposition during Euromaidan. In particular, they expressed threats to impose sanctions against the Ukrainian authorities. All this, according to the department, was clearly directed against the sovereignty and political independence of the country.

As mentioned above, Russian side emphasizes the fact that the Russian Federation had no obligation to coerce local population to remain part of Ukraine against his will, especially since not only were nuclear weapons not used, but not a single shot was fired during the Crimean events. Thus, there is no need to talk about Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

IN last days Hysteria among Ukrainian and Western politicians has become more frequent, accusing the Russian Federation of aggression against Ukraine and encroaching on its territorial integrity. Calling himself Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada called on the governments of the United States and Great Britain to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum due to the fact that Russia supports separatists in Crimea and begins open aggression against neighboring country. And ex-President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko even agreed to the point that he called on international partners to initiate an investigation into occupation actions by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Let us recall that the Memorandum of Security Guarantees in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is an international treaty concluded on December 5, 1994 between Ukraine, the United States, Russia and Great Britain on the nuclear-free status of Ukraine. The agreement contains clauses providing Ukraine with guarantees of its sovereignty and security. According to the Memorandum, the USA, Russia and Great Britain pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. The obligations also included refraining from the threat and use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. The signatory countries also committed themselves to holding consultations should a situation arise that raised questions regarding these obligations.

So Ukraine was the first to violate the Budapest Memorandum. At the time of signing the memorandum on December 5, 1994, the sovereignty of Ukraine did not extend to Crimea and Sevastopol. According to Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of ​​May 6, 1992, the Republic of Crimea is legal, democratic state and exercises sovereign rights and full power on its territory. Article 7 of the same constitution provides that the territory of the Republic of Crimea is inviolable and cannot be changed without its consent, and special status of the city of Sevastopol as an integral part of Crimea is determined by the relevant legislative acts of the Republic and cannot be changed without the consent of its citizens. Article 111 of the 1992 Constitution clearly states that the powers constituting the exclusive competence Supreme Council, include the adoption of the Constitution, constitutional and other laws of the Republic, the introduction of amendments and additions to them. Therefore, the Crimean Constitution of 1992 should have been abolished by a separate law only by the republican parliament.

Therefore, the actions of the regime of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, on March 17, 1995, unilaterally, by force, abolished the 1992 Constitution of Crimea and popularly removed elected president Yuri Meshkov must be qualified as coup d'etat, which resulted in the annexation of the peninsula. At the same time, Ukraine, in accordance with its assumed international obligations did not conduct any consultations on this matter. In response to illegal decisions of official Kyiv there was direct support for the Republic of Crimea State Duma Russian Federation. On May 17, 1995, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution in which it was proposed that the Supreme Council, the President and the Government of Ukraine provide the population of the Republic of Crimea with the right to free expression of will in relation to the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea. However, official Kyiv ignored these fundamentally fair initiatives of Russia.

The Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Great Britain, Russia and the United States on December 5, 1994. The document established security guarantees in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1996, this accession took place.

Basic provisions

The text of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum provided for Ukraine's obligation to remove all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified time frame. In its turn, Russian Federation The US and UK have pledged to:

• Respect the borders and independence of Ukraine in accordance with the OSCE Final Act.
• Do not use any weapons against the political independence, territorial integrity of Ukraine, unless for the purposes of self-defense and in other cases in accordance with
• Refrain from economic coercion, which is aimed at subordinating the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty to its own interests and thereby ensuring any advantages for itself.
• Demand immediate action if Ukraine, as a country party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, becomes the target of a threat or a victim of aggression using nuclear weapons.
• Do not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, except in cases of an attack by this country on the states bound by the memorandum, their territories and their allies.
• Provide counseling if any problems arise controversial situations relating to the above obligations.

China and France

At the time the Budapest Memorandum was signed, two more nuclear powers, France and China, were full parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, they did not sign the text of the document, but spoke about guarantees by issuing relevant statements. Their difference was that there was no clause on mandatory consultation in ambiguous situations.

Legal status

Currently, there is ongoing debate about whether the document is legally binding on the parties. As of 2014, the Budapest Memorandum has not been ratified. As Vladimir Ryabtsev, the first secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, who worked in this position in 1994-1995, says. and participated in the preparation of the document, when signing there was no speech about its ratification in the states that are parties. Then, in Ryabtsev’s opinion, there was an understanding that the Budapest Memorandum, the text of which was accepted by the participating countries, was obligatory for strict implementation.

Ryabtsev also expressed the opinion that the Russian Federation, back in 2003, when there was a conflict around Tuza Island, showed the opposite position on the issue of the significance and binding nature of the document signed in Hungary. The former first secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine said that in 2010 he finally realized that the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 is not an international legally binding document, since the discussions that took place within the framework of the Review Conference clearly demonstrated the fact that only the treaty that is ratified by the state must be complied with . At the same time, Vladimir Ryabtsev does not agree with the currently prevailing classification of the Memorandum as a document expressing the obligations of the parties, but considers it an interstate agreement that clearly establishes the implementation of the stated provisions.

Opinions of other political figures

Vladimir Gorbulin, ex-secretary of the Security Council of Ukraine, and Alexander Litvinenko, doctor political sciences, in September 2009, expressed that Ukraine should convene an international conference, during which to prepare new agreement on security guarantees, which will replace the Budapest Memorandum. It was proposed to involve the states that guaranteed the security of Ukraine in 1994, as well as other major geopolitical players, to participate in the conference.

Crimean crisis and compliance with the Memorandum

Against the backdrop of the events in Crimea, on March 1, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin received permission from the Federation Council to use the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of the Ukrainian state until the socio-political situation in this country is normalized. Such measures were due, according to Putin, to the extraordinary situation that had developed in Ukraine, life threatening our compatriots, as well as the fact that, in accordance with an international treaty, military personnel of the Russian Armed Forces are stationed on the territory of the Ukrainian state. No one officially announced the deployment of troops, but there were numerous cases of people without identification marks seizing military installations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to the Ukrainian authorities, these were Russian military personnel.

Putin's statements

The Russian President initially denied that our soldiers participated in the Crimean crisis. However, after joining, Putin confirmed that Russian military personnel supported the peninsula’s self-defense forces during the referendum. Such actions, according to the president, were taken to ensure conditions for the free expression of the will of Crimeans and maintaining the situation. Later, Vladimir Putin said that Russia never hid the fact of using its troops to block military units Ukrainians.

The Budapest Memorandum through the eyes of the Russian authorities

Our country officially rejects all accusations of violating the 1994 agreements and generally their applicability to the situation in Crimea. Russian President On March 4, 2014, he expressed the opinion that since a revolution took place in Ukraine, it can be considered that a new state was formed on its territory, and Russia did not sign any binding documents in relation to it.

On April 1, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement that the Russian Federation never guaranteed that it would force part of Ukraine against the will of local residents to remain part of it, and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 does not apply to circumstances that resulted from socio-economic and internal political factors . The Russian Foreign Ministry included the events that took place in Crimea as such factors.

The position of the Russian Federation on the merits of the issue is as follows: the Budapest Memorandum in its concept only has an obligation not to threaten the use of nuclear weapons and not to use them against non-nuclear states, which is Ukraine. Russia fulfills this obligation in full, and it is not violated in any way.

Position of the Ukrainian authorities

The Ukrainian side believes that the actions of the Russian Federation in Crimea, including the entry of the peninsula into Russia, violate the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. On March 21, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the Declaration on the Struggle for the Liberation of Ukraine and stated in it that the Russian Federation not only violated the current legislation of the sovereign Ukrainian state, but also ignored the norms international law, which are enshrined in the UN Charter.

March 27, 2014 Andriy Deshchytsia, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, during a speech at a meeting General Assembly The UN said that an entire part of the Ukrainian state, after two weeks of military occupation, was forcibly annexed by a country that had previously pledged to guarantee the sovereignty, independence and integrity of Ukraine in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum. Deshchytsia asked for support for a resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which would declare the referendum held in Crimea invalid.

Finally

On December 5, 2014, on the twentieth anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Prime Minister of Ukraine, once again called on the treaty parties to undertake joint decisive action to force Russia to fulfill its obligations. In turn, Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the Memorandum did not contain obligations to recognize the coup d'etat that took place in Ukraine. And on December 6, 2014, members of the “Crimean Initiative” group stated that it was Ukraine that violated the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum, since at the time of its signing the sovereignty of this country did not extend to the Republic of Crimea, and in general the peninsula had been part of the Ukrainian state illegally for many years.

As you can see, disputes regarding the status of the document signed on December 5, 1994 do not subside to this day. We can only monitor developments.

On the topic of the memorandum signed in 1994 in Budapest, I specifically looked at this text again. Firstly, it’s just a piece of paper, namely a “memorandum” (i.e., a memo), where there are no obligations at all. Secondly, Ukraine has never had any nuclear weapons. Indeed, on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR after the collapse of the country there remained a huge number of intercontinental ballistic missiles. With warheads, mines, etc. However, from the point of view combat use it was useless junk - the launch codes were in Moscow. Maintenance of this farm was worth huge money. Therefore, the United States and Britain forced Ukraine to abandon these missiles and relocate them to the Russian Federation. Just in case.

Memorandum on security guarantees in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Ukraine,

Welcoming Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Considering Ukraine's commitment to the removal of all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified time frame,

noting the security changes in the world, including the end of " cold war", which created the conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,

confirm the following:

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm to Ukraine their commitment, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or in any way. or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm to Ukraine their commitment, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion aimed at subordinating to their own interests the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty, and thereby ensure benefits of any kind.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to assist Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in the event that Ukraine becomes the victim of an act of aggression or subject to threat of aggression using nuclear weapons.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm with respect to Ukraine their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the event of an attack on them, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces or their allies by such a state acting together with a state possessing nuclear weapons or an alliance agreement associated with it.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Ukraine will consult if a situation arises that affects these obligations.

This Memorandum will be applicable from the moment of signing.

Signed in four copies, equally authentic in English, Russian and Ukrainian.

A memorandum on security guarantees in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was concluded on December 5, 1994 between Ukraine, the USA, Russia and the UK on the nuclear-free status of Ukraine. The agreement contains clauses providing Ukraine with guarantees of its sovereignty and security

The agreement was signed by Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Great Britain and the USA. According to the memorandum, the United States, Russia and Great Britain pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.

The obligations also included refraining from the threat and use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine.

In addition, the signatory countries undertook to consult in the event of a situation arising that raised questions regarding these obligations.

As of 2014, the treaty has not been ratified. It never became an international legal document, and mechanisms for its application were not developed.

A number of experts believe that the Budapest Agreements are not a formal agreement, but a diplomatic document according to which the parties made promises to each other as part of the process of disarmament of former Soviet republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the Budapest agreements on guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for the withdrawal of nuclear forces cannot apply to new government in Kyiv, which came as a result of the revolution.

“When we point out that this is an anti-constitutional coup, they tell us: no, this is not an armed seizure of power, this is a revolution. And if this is a revolution, then it’s hard for me to disagree with some of our experts who believe that something new is emerging on this territory state. And we did not sign any binding documents with this state, nor in relation to this state,” Putin said in a conversation with reporters on March 4, 2014.

He gave an analogy with the events of 1917 in Russia, when, as a result of the revolution, the Russian empire and a new state arose.

Barry Kelman, a law professor and director of the International Center for Arms Control at DePaul University College, said the Budapest Accords are binding under international law, but that doesn't mean there is any mechanism to enforce it.

"It's much more complex issue than it might seem at first glance. It is binding under international law, but that does not mean there is any mechanism to enforce it. The Budapest Memorandum follows the Helsinki Final Act and, in fact, reproduces its provisions. There are measures to build trust and a number of other broader obligations - mostly negative obligations. Don't interfere," he said.

Kelman believes that there are a number of other sources of international law that oblige Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter.

Meanwhile, a number of experts believe that Ukraine was the first to violate the Budapest Memorandum:

At the time of signing the memorandum on December 5, 1994, the sovereignty of Ukraine did not extend to Crimea and Sevastopol. According to Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of ​​May 6, 1992, the Republic of Crimea is a legal, democratic state and exercises sovereign rights and full power on its territory.

Article 7 provides that the territory of the Republic of Crimea is inviolable and cannot be changed without its consent, and the special status of the city of Sevastopol as an integral part of Crimea is determined by the relevant legislative acts of the Republic and cannot be changed without the consent of its citizens.

Article 111 of the 1992 Constitution states that the powers that constitute the exclusive competence of the Supreme Council include the adoption of the Constitution, constitutional and other laws of the Republic, and the introduction of amendments and additions to them. The Crimean Constitution of 1992 should have been abolished by a separate law only by the republican parliament.

The actions of the regime of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, on March 17, 1995, which unilaterally abolished the 1992 Crimean Constitution by force and removed elected President Yuri Meshkov from power, must be qualified as a coup d'etat. Ukraine, in accordance with its international obligations, did not conduct any consultations on this matter.

On May 17, 1995, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution in which it was proposed that the Supreme Council, the President and the Government of Ukraine provide the population of the Republic of Crimea with the right to free expression of will in relation to the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea. Official Kyiv ignored these initiatives.