Declaration "against" state sovereignty, or what is worst in Istanbul drafts

It is from this document that the initial ideology of Ukraine's "non-alignment" and "permanent neutrality" stems. The subsequent fantastically horrific wording and figures of those papers are just the consequences.

Thus, the INTENTION to adhere to non-alignment and permanent neutrality in the future was laid down in the text in the summer of 1990, first by the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR at its last plenum, and then - at the suggestion of the Communists, who were in the majority - by the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR of its last XII convocation.

It was a document created in the course of Gorbachev's restructuring in anticipation of the then planned new Union Treaty.

The Declaration contextually provided for the use of this Union Treaty in the process of signing by the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR.

Later, the authors of the Declaration explained their intention to create a non-aligned and neutral state primarily by their desire to dissociate themselves from any blocs led by Russia.

On the other hand, it now occurs to me that, in the absence of other documentary evidence, this text of the Ukrainian Declaration can be considered by the current ruscist leadership as a specific way of putting in writing the "promise" of Western countries (?!) not to expand their Euro-Atlantic power into the territory of the former USSR.

However, it should be emphasized once again that the Declaration, while a rather radical step towards Ukraine's break away from the USSR, was still a purely transitional document.

This is not surprising in the context of the historical turning point of that time.

After all, it was adopted after a similar document of the then RSFSR!

In particular, there are words about the sovereignty, independence and self-determination of the Ukrainian SSR, but nothing about state independence.

Therefore, when the historical process led Ukraine to the Act of State Independence, the Declaration was not included in it.

Much later, the Declaration, with its "intention" to keep the Ukrainian SSR (!) within the framework of non-alignment and neutrality, was discussed during the creation and periodic improvement of the Constitution of Ukraine.

And, of course, it is these positions of the Declaration that have been speculatively held on the banners of all pro-Russian political forces without exception throughout the years of Ukraine's independence.

The most prominent among them was Natalia Vitrenko's Progressive Socialist Party, which used them to try to slow down even the adoption of the Ukrainian Constitution, not to mention endless anti-NATO rallies.

But all the other Kremlin henchmen were not far behind, emphasizing that non-alignment and neutrality were almost a condition for the recognition of Ukraine as an independent state in the world.

However, there was another clause in the text of the Declaration, which the Trojan horses of Moscow have almost never mentioned until now, when the Declaration was pulled out of the archive to justify Ukraine's current surrender.

This is a clause about... nuclear weapons.

The Declaration states: "The Ukrainian SSR... adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, produce or acquire nuclear weapons".

There is not a single word about the country's promise to "not have" nuclear weapons or to "renounce" them.

Of course, because in 1990 the Ukrainian SSR had nuclear weapons on its territory and was not going to give them up.

The process of nuclear disarmament was separate and unrelated to the Declaration.

Moreover, nuclear disarmament has effectively nullified the state's intentions to remain non-aligned or even neutral.

Nuclear disarmament deprived the country of the means to guarantee the inviolability of its borders and sovereignty, and the Budapest Memorandum did not compensate for this security deficit.

Much has been written and said by participants and witnesses of those historic events about how the Budapest Memorandum replaced not only the nuclear arsenal but also clear guarantees of Ukraine's NATO membership.

But in any case, an attempt to use the devalued and compromised intentions of Ukraine's former leadership regarding neutrality and non-alignment in the current context of the struggle for peace in the bloody war for independence sends a very bad signal.

This signal is about the dubiousness of the positions of the country's current leadership.

Everything is bad here.

First, that the initiative to refer to the Declaration came from the Ukrainian side.

In this way, the illegal coercion to neutrality and non-alignment by the aggressor country was leveled.

Instead, a kind of "political will" of the Ukrainian leadership was imitated, as if it was not related to aggression and invasion, but, on the contrary, as if it was connected to the history of the formation of Ukraine's statehood.

Secondly, the very justification of seemingly unforced concessions to the aggressor by an internal Ukrainian document served to "nullify" the act of aggression and the illegal invasion itself.

And this is an entry into the legal field of a potential world tribunal for the crime of Russian aggression.

And the course of the Istanbul talks actually set an example for any future negotiations - that they should overturn the world's legal assessment of the crime of aggression and, accordingly, the legal punishment for it.

Thirdly, such an initiative on the part of Ukraine could not but impress NATO countries with regard to our country's potential membership in the Alliance.

The two years of various schemes and plans to bring Ukraine closer to NATO without eventually accepting it as a member can be largely explained by the alliance's uncertainty about Kyiv's own steadfastness.

Moreover, the current reminder that Ukraine was willing to sacrifice its course towards NATO will undoubtedly have, and probably already has, a significant impact on the current "ambiguous" position of some NATO members, albeit not publicly.

And this is right on the eve of the anniversary summit, from which, despite pessimistic forecasts, official Kyiv is supposedly still seeking positive decisions on our membership.

It would seem that the episode with the drafts of the "Istanbul agreements" is a thing of the past, and the Kremlin maniac's references to it can be ignored.

But the topic of potential negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow has not disappeared.

This is a favourite topic of all those who do not want to lose the ruscists markets and some ruscists goods and services, i.e. business as usual.

And for this purpose, it is pushing Ukraine into surrender and the world system of international law into collapse.

In these circumstances, the history of the Istanbul talks on the basis of the Ukrainian Declaration of State Sovereignty reinforces the suspicion that the Ukrainian military and political leadership has secret reserves of covert sabotage of the course towards NATO.

And it's not our famous corruption, under-reformed judicial system or even People`s Deputy Tyshchenko...

Therefore, it is time to recall once again that the Declaration cannot serve as an indulgence to anyone who would voluntarily compromise the constitutional norm of the NATO movement.

And this follows... precisely from the content of the aforementioned Article 9, paragraph 5 of the Declaration.

Non-alignment and neutrality could only be discussed if Ukraine retained the right and fact of possessing nuclear weapons as a security guarantee.

Because - once again - "not to acquire", "not to accept" and "not to produce" does not mean "not to have" what you already have and legally possess.

As soon as Ukraine lost its nuclear weapons, non-alignment and neutrality ceased to ensure the country's security. Therefore, they lost their power and meaning altogether.

On the contrary, there is a need to ensure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country through the collective security system.

Since there was and is no other option in Europe other than NATO, it means that Ukraine has started its movement towards NATO.

Over the course of thirty years, the Ukrainian state has taken this obvious fact into account and enshrined it in a whole body of legal acts, starting with the 1993 General Directions of Ukraine's Foreign Policy and the Military Doctrine of that time.

This was all the more logical because at the same time, the Russian Federation intensified its attempts to retain not only the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea but also Crimea itself in general and Sevastopol in particular.

It is not surprising that now the ruscist side in its Istanbul drafts demanded the abolition of all those dozens of domestic and international documents on which, in addition to the Constitution, the legal framework of the Ukrainian state is based.

By the way, about the legal framework of the surrender that did not happen, but could have happened...

There are two versions of why official Kyiv refused to continue and conclude the negotiations.

These are the horrors of Bucha, exposed as a result of the drive out of ruscists from the Kyiv region, and the West's insistence on continuing to resist the aggressor allegedly expressed through Johnsonuk.

In Arakhamia's interview, one could also hear such a reason as the need to change the Constitution of Ukraine, which stemmed from these agreements...

Really?

It's strange.

The contradiction to the Constitution of Ukraine is already inherent in the preamble of the text of the so-called agreements of 15.04.2022, which contains a reference to the Declaration and no reference to the Constitution of Ukraine.

And in general, at the very beginning of the negotiations, if the permanent neutrality and non-alignment of Ukraine were discussed, there were already violations of the current Basic Law of our state.

So from Mr. Arakhamia's explanations, it was never clear: did the state leadership reject the agreements because it did not see the technical possibility of steamrolling them through parliament during martial law, or was it because of the absolute contradiction of these ruscist conditions to the very fact of the existence of the state of Ukraine?

This question remains relevant in view of the second stage of Zelenskyy's Global Peace Summit, which is supposedly expected to be attended by the criminal Putin.

To whom Ukraine must make some concessions because the Kremlin maniac's older brothers need it for their ambitions and interests.

So if the Kremlin maniac believes that he has been led down the primrose path for years with some promise of non-expansion of NATO, the Ukrainian Declaration of State Sovereignty should definitely not be proof, and therefore a way to compensate him for his loss in destroying the world order.

Let Putin's patrons, friends, clients and agents find another way to justify his aggression. In other words, to break the Ukrainian resistance.

And about legitimacy.

When President Zelenskyy issued his decree banning negotiations with Putin, he was like Ulysses, "tying himself to the mast" so that he could successfully navigate our ship through all the threats of the stormy world ocean without being tempted by the sweet songs of the world's Sirens.

It was a strong move...

And our Scylla and Charybdis are still ahead.

At this time, to break with the team-nation in an attempt to meet the needs of a bad temporary "peace" and its beneficiaries would be to lose the true legitimacy of the country's leader.

Should it be reminded that this is exactly what the Kremlin is seeking for.

Iryna POHORIELOVA, for Censor.NET