Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "The Budapest Memorandum: Everything You Need to Know" video.

  1. It didn't say "their" at 6:26; it said "eliminate all nuclear weapons" (which does not imply ownership). Had it (just) said "all their nuclear weapons" that would still permit others to station their nuclear weapons in Ukraine and if Russia: designed; built; maintained and locked these nuclear weapons (also took them back, to decommission them) these are clearly Russian weapons. After H Clinton, in the UN security council, "reinterpreted" the wording of an agreement with Russia and China (who abstained) over Libya; America got its regime change; but the UN security council no longer had any credibility. The words would have been chosen carefully, what a diplomatic blunder it would be to put "their" (NATO could put their nuclear weapons there instead). So back when everyone was on the "same page"; using Russian facilities and American money, a lot of weapons were decommissioned (some of which, due to age, were frankly a liability). While UN document No 52241 (featuring the date 2nd Oct 2014) is a slightly different page, the original agreement was signed on 3rd Dec 1994. By 1995, Ukraine was considered: independent; sovereign; neutral and a non-nuclear-weapon state (by all) it's territorial integrity and political independence respected... or maybe not? In December 2013, V Nuland said in a speech to the US–Ukraine Foundation that the US had spent about $5 billion on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since 1991. Since Ukraine was already a democracy, it seems odd (to me) for the US to spend $5.1 billion promoting democracy there; some might even consider that a breach of agreement section 3. The 2014 armed overthrow of the elected government is another point of note; the pro-EU side claim election tampering; the pro-Russian side that it was American inspired (CIA); whatever it was, this sparked an eight year civil war. I don't know who the CSCE are, or the specific principles referred to, or if simply giving $5,100,000,000 can be considered economic coercion. If this was an attempt to secure some kind of advantage (economic or otherwise) it would be in breach of section 3. Or put another way, if I offered V Nuland $5.1 billion to sleep with her (I heard she likes to blow pipe (sorry)), would that be considered: economic coercion; charity; maybe an incentive, what? In 2014 the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, had a Queen and was in the European Union (EU), by 2023 it left the EU (by referendum) and now has a King. Not sure who was representing EU interests, but after the Maidan revolution, there was a flood of Western corporate investment (they found a way around the "farmland moratorium") In the report from "The Oakland Institute" (another "think tank"), titled "Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict; from July 2014, it described how to walk around the wording of the moratorium on buying Ukrainian farmland (buy industrial land, build processing facilities on that and pay to lease the farmland); or buy shares in UkrLandFarming. The report details how all aspects of the Ukrainian food system and supply chain were being acquired by transnational corporations. It was in their interest to "buy in" to Ukraine's agriculture, which some might not describe as economic coercion (but unfortunately that is how some of these transnationals have behaved before); also the IMF and World Bank tend to lend money in exchange for access to state sector industry (their model is for private sector companies to own things like: gas; electricity and water distribution; they are NOT charities). So however the Western interests wish to interpret the Budapest Memorandum: the armed overthrow of a democratically elected government (although quite corrupt); the "gifts" of money by the American government (still giving) and private companies acquiring land (around 2.3 million ha) and moving to control Ukrainian agriculture did not go down well with Russia. That's not my opinion, the Russia government: complained; then warned; then acted. Even a show of force (laying siege to Kyiv for a week and occupying Chernobyl, although out of commission for around 10,000 years) was ignored. So I would discount the "flowery" American version of events where they were only there to help; they just can't understand why Russia would take issue with what they were doing and when it comes to what Russia is targeting in Ukraine, it's not people (fellow Slavs) it's all that Western investment (be it: weapons; land; GM labs; agricultural plants, even that rebuilding contract, already awarded). So while the Western media does what it usually does before war or elections; if the grand Western "cause" is to protect their "investment" (a term the Senate uses), I don't think they can; I doubt America will be required to offer further assurances; the EU having lost relatively cheap Russian energy and grain; with other economic issues and another refugee crisis (they've got their own problems). While the West trying to force matters militarily, may run into full Russian deployment and a nuclear ultimatum (if the Russian nationalists get their way). What one perhaps needs to know is: that there is the word of the law and the spirit of the law; the concept was a neutral buffer state; the other "interpretation" is war with Russia (that's all).
    2