3 ms·

sovereignty is not surrendered by respecting the condition of avoiding all military bloc alliances, under which such sovereignty was granted initially [1]: "The

sovereignty is not surrendered by respecting the condition of avoiding all military bloc alliances, under which such sovereignty was granted initially [1]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, produce or acquire nuclear weapons." [1] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#Text https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

sofixa 4y ago
First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence. Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum. Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the situation is already drastically different. Ukraine's choice post-2014 were to surrender to Russia's whims, or try to find allies to protect it from future Russian incursions. And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  > First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence. These are the same in the followed legal events (see below) > Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994. The Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine was signed in 1990 and it pre-dates all further legal documents that led to Ukraine's independence. All subsequent legal documents and events are predicated on respecting and referencing the declaration of 1990. The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 references and follows the Act of proclamation of independence of Ukraine from August 24, 1991, which in turn follows and references "Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine" [1]. Implementing the declaration means following and executing all intentions of the declaration, that's why I said above that "conditions" and "intentions" mean the same thing in the underlying legal procedures. > Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 you forgot to add: after a prior armed coup against a legitimately elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country. > And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto. Blatantly false, the Ukrainian SSR had certain autonomy under the Union, as did a few other european and asian SSR's, but it didn't have sovereignty [2]. This is the whole reason the Declaration of 1990 exists in the first place, as it was the means to declare and begin a legal transition to a sovereign state. And in that sense sovereignty was granted to Ukraine, because there only are two ways a nation can obtain sovereignty: either by fighting for it in a war or by coming into a peaceful legal agreement on mutually respected terms and conditions. In 1990, the second approach was taken and the terms and conditions were declared and signed by all parties in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine#(Text_of)_Act_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of... [2] Under the Soviet one-party model, the Ukrainian SSR was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union through its republican branch: the Communist Party of Ukraine. No decision of the government of Ukraine (Council of Ministers) was adopted without approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Rep...

sofixa 4y ago

First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence. Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum. Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the situation is already drastically different. Ukraine's choice post-2014 were to surrender to Russia's whims, or try to find allies to protect it from future Russian incursions. And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.

ghostwriter 4y ago
> First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence. These are the same in the followed legal events (see below) > Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994. The Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine was signed in 1990 and it pre-dates all further legal documents that led to Ukraine's independence. All subsequent legal documents and events are predicated on respecting and referencing the declaration of 1990. The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 references and follows the Act of proclamation of independence of Ukraine from August 24, 1991, which in turn follows and references "Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine" [1]. Implementing the declaration means following and executing all intentions of the declaration, that's why I said above that "conditions" and "intentions" mean the same thing in the underlying legal procedures. > Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 you forgot to add: after a prior armed coup against a legitimately elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country. > And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto. Blatantly false, the Ukrainian SSR had certain autonomy under the Union, as did a few other european and asian SSR's, but it didn't have sovereignty [2]. This is the whole reason the Declaration of 1990 exists in the first place, as it was the means to declare and begin a legal transition to a sovereign state. And in that sense sovereignty was granted to Ukraine, because there only are two ways a nation can obtain sovereignty: either by fighting for it in a war or by coming into a peaceful legal agreement on mutually respected terms and conditions. In 1990, the second approach was taken and the terms and conditions were declared and signed by all parties in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine#(Text_of)_Act_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of... [2] Under the Soviet one-party model, the Ukrainian SSR was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union through its republican branch: the Communist Party of Ukraine. No decision of the government of Ukraine (Council of Ministers) was adopted without approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Rep...