Did the USSR constitutionally enact legislation to dissolve itself and confer independence to the successor states, or was there any treaty between the USSR and the successor states to do that?
The US became legally independent of the UK by the Treaty of Paris.
I don’t recall a legally equivalent basis for the independence of the USSR’s successor states, so the Ambassador is possibly technically correct.
The there states that created the USSR (the Russian SSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Belorussian SSR) abolished the treaty that established the USSR.
So according to Chinese logic, the Belovezha Accords confirm that the establishment of the USSR is a “historical document” that has been consigned to the dustbin.
And any nation state admitted to the UN since is de facto and de jure a recognised independent nation state.
RE: I don’t recall a legally equivalent basis for the independence of the USSR’s successor states, so the Ambassador is possibly technically correct.
Several things supersede any formal treaty signed
1) THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE COUNTRIES. Do they WANT to be part of Russia or WANT to be under Russian dominance? If not, then their will supersedes any formal treaty.
2) ARE THESE NATIONS RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED NATIONS AS INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES?
3) Worse comes to worst, Russia and its leaders ought to ask themselves— is it better to correct this legal oversight and formalize it? Or do they prefer to sacrifice hundreds of thousand more lives to force these nations back to Russian domination?
RE: The US became legally independent of the UK by the Treaty of Paris.
Yes, but a bloody war had to be fought before the Treaty could be signed.
Russia has a choice : To fight a bloody war to absorb these Baltic States against their will ( meaning, to risk a world war ), or be a good world citizen and like King George of old, simply legalize their independence by signing a formal treaty with each of these nations.