Taras Chornovil on security agreements: they are just promises, Zelenskyy has made a fetish of them
15 May 2024 15:48
ЕКСКЛЮЗИВ
The security agreements that Ukraine is currently actively signing are memoranda that have no obligations. This was stated by political analyst and former MP Taras Chornovil in a commentary to [comersant ].
“This is not a security agreement. This is a memorandum. There is no security agreement. So far, there is only one planned security agreement for which preparations for its signing have begun, at the level of an intergovernmental document, which is the agreement. This is in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 211/2022 of 4 April 2022, authorising negotiations with Russia on security guarantees. The agreement was actually planned as an intergovernmental document with Russia after Bucha and after everything. Just so you understand, this is the only document that was called an agreement. All the other ones signed so far are memoranda, as the text says,”
– he said.
According to him, each of these documents, which have now been signed by Ukraine, states that they come into force without parliamentary ratification, etc. Therefore, they are not binding.
“They are good and good documents in terms of text, but not in terms of action. All of these documents, without exception, can actually be called memoranda of security assurances. None of these documents is an agreement,”
– chornovil added.
The political analyst explained that the agreement is binding and must be approved at the state level in accordance with domestic legislation and international law. That is, our interstate agreements must be ratified by the parliament. Just as the Minsk agreements are not agreements, they are only commitments.
“There are agreements that are directly applicable, where it is clearly defined: we are doing it, we have launched it, we have signed the agreement, and it’s all over. This is what we need most of all now. There are framework agreements – these are agreements that set out the general concept, but they are ratified by parliaments, so they are already binding. But failure to fulfil each of these points of the agreement still requires some additional actions. There should be some agreements between the cabinets, intergovernmental decisions, etc.”
– he said.
Chornovil said that these memoranda contain very good things, but that an international agreement needs to be prepared to put them into effect.
“I have stopped reading them now, but I have read at least 10 of these agreements from cover to cover, and they contain very good things. But, for each of these things, the following 2 actions need to be taken. First, we need to actually adopt an international agreement, on each item. For example, in each of these agreements, there are clauses on military-technical cooperation. In particular, this is also planned for the US agreement. Yes, there is a good text. At least with Germany, Britain and France, the texts are very good. In order for this to work, we need to prepare an international agreement between Ukraine and Germany, Britain and France, or someone else, on our international military-technical cooperation. It needs to be adopted and ratified in parliament. After that, it can come into effect,”
– said the political scientist.
According to him, there is one more point: it requires funds to be allocated. After all, some of these agreements, the so-called memoranda, state that governments, if necessary, create working groups that actually agree on some kind of implementation of the provisions of these agreements and on the allocation of funds for them, which takes place in accordance with the internal state procedure.
“This is what these agreements say. That is, they are just promises and nothing more, nothing at all. I don’t understand why the hell we got involved in this story with these memoranda. Zelenskyy has made a fetish out of them, they are… I say again, they are just a set of very good phrases. These phrases are better than the Budapest Memorandum, but they are less effective, because the Budapest Memorandum had at least some commitments, even minimal ones. And here there are no commitments at all, nothing at all,”
– chornovil stressed.
Asked how long we will listen to these formulations such as “deeply concerned” or “Ukraine has moved even closer to NATO”, Chornovil replied that the Ukrainian government has refused to join NATO.
“Of course, I am also tired of this, because it is our people who are dying, my friends and acquaintances are dying. But then I have a simple question: when Putin first came to power, he said that it would be good for Russia to join NATO. Do you think it would be good for NATO if Russia joined? Probably not. It’s probably a bomb from within. That’s why NATO thinks about who to accept and who not to accept. NATO can help and accept those who at least agree to live by NATO principles and standards,” he said,
– he said.
The political analyst cited an example when most NATO states declared that China was an axis of evil, when China directly supported Iran’s missile attacks against Israel. There were several statements. In particular, in America, it was very clear that China is a strategic enemy of America. That’s right, an enemy. And the President of Ukraine said on that very day that China is a key country in the peace process in Ukraine.
“I’m sorry, but this is a spit in the face of NATO. There is another name for this: we tell you why we are not in NATO yet, but we work with your enemies, we focus on your enemies, and with you we only ask for money and why we are not in NATO,”
– chornovil said.
He emphasised that there is only one effective mechanism for joining NATO that gives results. This is the MAP. There is no other mechanism.
“The other thing is this, and maybe it will work. Because the MAP means you make commitments, sign them, and they sign them. That’s why Orban was so opposed to signing the MAP under Poroshenko? Because if it was signed and Ukraine fulfilled those points, then it would be impossible not to accept it in principle, even theoretically. They are obliged to accept it. But Zelenskyy refused the MAP. And what happened now? Now we can sign any plans we want, whether we will fulfil them or not is our business, and their business is whether they want to accept us or not. Because the MAP would have obliged them, and now nothing obliges them. So let’s not look for someone else to blame. The Ukrainian government has refused to join NATO, but we are shouting why NATO is not giving us this or that. Why should they give us anything if we refused to be members?”
– the political scientist summarised.
