General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums30 yrs ago today: Ukraine disarmed itself voluntarily in exchange for security assurances from US, Britain and Russia
@olddogua.bsky.social
December 5 1994, 30 years ago today Ukraine disarmed itself voluntarily of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles in exchange for security assurances from the United States, Britain, and Russia.

December 5, 2024 at 3:39 AM
https://bsky.app/profile/olddogua.bsky.social/post/3lckbf3qqnc23
30 yrs later and we're about to sell them down the river to Russia.


Evolve Dammit
(19,736 posts)moniss
(6,427 posts)post WW2 period. The idea that the world governments would make good on their promises was founded in faith rather than anybody being able to point to it being reliable. However the idea that Russia would be taken control of by ruthless thugs was predicted by many and had a basis in prior history.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)Ukraine didn't have the infrastructure or fund to maintain the weapons anyway, and the agreement itself was sound.
The problem was nobody's crystal balls seemed to be working. Relations with Russia looked very different at the time. Hell, even under Obama with Putin well entrenched, there was the Big Red Reset Button.
Problems were stoked up in the early days by the theft of Russia's national assets by outside interests and Russia's oligarch class. Instead of investing for the future to produce a more stable economy, a bunch of crooks got very rich and Russia didn't develop the sorts of industries that were attractive on the world markets, other than peddling some middling weaponry and a whole lot of raw resources.
moniss
(6,427 posts)Ukraine. The only party they needed protection from was in fact Russia. The infrastructure and funding could have been addressed although certainly on a time scale that might present challenges. But the point remains that the parties to the agreement basically came to an agreement about a principle and little else other than Ukraine giving the weapons up. Note this excerpt from an article from DW dated 12/05/24:
" Admittedly, these guarantees were only a formality, since no sanctions mechanisms had been established at the time.
"Nowhere does it say that if a country violates this memorandum, that the others will attack militarily," said Gerhard Simon, Eastern Europe expert at the University of Cologne.
German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, telling DW, "The agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written."
Which to my point about the Budapest Agreement was like so many others that governments have made throughout history and the scrap pile of the ones that were never stood behind is a mountain compared to the barely visible stack of any they've upheld.
As bad as it sounds I believe Ukraine did not use the leverage they had and did not play hardball at all. They should have insisted on security measures spelled out with clear measures to be taken to meet responsibilities for security. They did not but should have told the Russians and the US/Western Nations that if they did not provide such an agreement that they would entertain bids for the nuclear stockpile from any and all interested parties. Instead they believed in promises and people pledging belief in a principle.
They are now utterly f**ked come late January and the nations like Poland should take heed that the promises of Article 5 and NATO may not be as ironclad as they think. It too does not specify a military response but only says NATO will take the actions "it deems necessary" in responding to a member being attacked. That in fact is not a mandate for an action but it is a means to allow taking no action and still claim NATO met it's obligation under Article 5.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097
Emrys
(8,117 posts)Ukraine couldn't have launched them conventionally even if it wanted to and all other considerations being equal.
I guess if desperate enough, Ukraine could have dismantled the missiles and made more or less dirty bombs, but it faced more immediate problems, and at that point the nukes were more of a liability than anything else, for instance simply to store them securely.
One major fear at the time was proliferation, seen as much more of a credible and immediate threat than any war involving Russia.
Ukraine proposing or threatening to "entertain bids" from all-comers for the nukes as you suggest would have rendered it a pariah state from early in its newly independent existence, and might even have provoked military intervention to head off the threat.
moniss
(6,427 posts)selling them off to the highest bidder. The threat to do so would have been very potent in a negotiation and any country would have been more than happy to have loads of weapons grade material if nothing else and scrap the rest. But that would not have been as lucrative as a country having their engineers go over the construction and technology etc. of the missiles as well as having the weapons grade material. I know it sounds mercenary but consider the facts known then and the facts realized now.
Even a casual student of world history from times of old all the way up through the bulk of the 20th century would easily conclude that international assurances of goals for independence or security of another country are the most fleeting of all. Ukraine listened to promises made by governments known to be notorious for not keeping their word, backstabbing each other and secretly working against agreements they've made. Hardly the sort of thing to entrust the future security of your country to.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)Read what I wrote above - again, if you misunderstood it the first time:
Your suggestion doesn't sound mercenary. It sounds glib and lunatic, and quite likely suicidal.
moniss
(6,427 posts)The threat would have been enough to get them better than what they got. Sabre rattling has it's place. In this case they had leverage and used none of it.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)to "the highest bidder".
Your proposition is the one that sounds childish and hopelessly naive. It would have been disastrous just as a threat, let alone if they attempted to carry it through.
moniss
(6,427 posts)Emrys
(8,117 posts)and many more of them - than have them already. What you've proposed is called nuclear proliferation, or at least the threat of it. It's not been a popular move over the years.
moniss
(6,427 posts)the years with the "big guys" as to whether to have or not have a nuclear program or not haven't gotten concessions from the international community.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)And, yeah, that tactic's worked out well for North Korea and Iran so far, to name just a couple.
More often, the countries that have successfully developed nuclear arms have done so relatively quietly, even if that's required the major powers to turn a blind eye. Israel, for example.
moniss
(6,427 posts)with nothing of substance from the position they were in. I do not mean countries like North Korea and Iran because they have embarked on programs. I'm talking about those who didn't but could have.
MadameButterfly
(2,342 posts)we will do better. Russia shows us what happens when loyalists are rewarded instead of experts.
What no on foresaw in Ukraine was the threat to democracy in the west. It seemed a safe bet to depend on us. Now I fear nukes in the hands of rhe US. I hope we do all we can in the last days for Ukraine and then Europe is able to take over.
Crunchy Frog
(27,257 posts)All it does is make smaller and weaker countries more vulnerable. Get ready for a world bristleing with nukes.
druidity33
(6,625 posts)Crimea was invaded and stolen. Did the US or Britain do anything about that? Oh wait, there were sanctions?
Jacson6
(1,010 posts)The wheels are coming off in Ukraine. Army desertions are high, Russia has disabled electrical and gas operations. Trump is going to force an agreement where E. Ukraine is annexed by Russia and no EU or NATO membership for them.
sinkingfeeling
(53,817 posts)My 55 year old son is vowing to take early retirement and go to Ukraine to fight Russia.
Jspur
(666 posts)you is your son of Ukranian descent?
sinkingfeeling
(53,817 posts)MadameButterfly
(2,342 posts)as Zelensky has requested. There is no hope after.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,260 posts)New nations being approved for NATO membership requires unanimous approval from all current member countries. There are at least 6 that will not approve right now. Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-nato-bid-us-germany/]
FailureToCommunicate
(14,379 posts)there was, for a time, then, less chance of nuclear conflict from that region.
Now, no thanks to the MAGA voters, that delicate situation may get much worse.
https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/colby-award-book-presentation-inheriting-bomb-collapse-ussr-and-nuclear
Passages
(1,711 posts)I realize many would disagree with me but their safety/sovereignty may never be the same.
WarGamer
(16,159 posts)Reality:
Ukraine was persuaded to give up RUSSIAN Nukes in their possession because the US and European nations were terrified that a nation as corrupt as Ukraine in the 90's would give/sell or lose a nuke to a terrorist group.
ck4829
(36,534 posts)Meowmee
(6,828 posts)Bettie
(17,642 posts)They held up their end of the bargain and well, Russia is now led by a guy who believes he deserves to rule the entire world.
Come January the US will be led by a party that thinks that Putin should rule the world, and Britain is doing what they can...as the US has been doing through the Biden admin, though Republicans all seem to be Putin Fanboys.
OAITW r.2.0
(29,265 posts)Could be a completely different world in 3 years. Stay tuned!
paleotn
(19,853 posts)And for good reason.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)The Falkland Islands are part of the UK, and Argentina invaded them.
paleotn
(19,853 posts)I doubt Zelensky will be knocking on the door of Moscow anytime soon. And I seriously doubt the Argentine navy would steam up the Thames to shell Parliament.
Nukes are the ultimate insurance policy for regime survival against outside threats. That's why so many folks have them or want them. India, Pakistan, Israel, NK, Iran and on and on. Invade NK to end the Kim regime? I would suggest not for obvious reasons. The same reasons why Egyptian and Syrian tanks will never roll across the Israeli frontier ever again.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)The Falklands (if anyone wants to split hairs over them, yes, they are technically a British-administered overseas territory inhabited by Britons) was an existential conflict for the Thatcher government. Its polling was atrocious, then Argentina invaded, and the scramble to fire up the public and scrabble together a task group convulsed the whole country - living here, it felt like a real war, extreme jingoism included, along with the sad fate of too many veterans who never recovered from their experiences even if they didn't die in combat. If the task group hadn't defeated the Argentine occupiers, say if a negotiated end to the conflict (which seems to be all the rage nowadays) had been necessary, it's likely the Thatcher government would have fallen.
Kursk has also been one in the eye for Putin when he least needed it, but not yet an existential threat, granted.
Since you mention Israel, the Yom Kippur War occurred when it's highly likely Israel had already developed undeclared nuclear weapons, and that seemed quite existential at the time. The nuclear weapons didn't seem to play a role in the outcome.
There have been cross-border incursions on both sides between Pakistan and India, but again, yeah, not existential so far.
Russia and China have also had some cross-border incursions either way.
And then I'll come to the USA, the one nuclear-armed state that's actually used them in war.
The Russians are bragging openly on-air that they're literally dismantling the US's political system and installing a friendly regime.
paleotn
(19,853 posts)And Israel didn't have nukes prior to Yom Kippur. After? You can bet your ass.
Emrys
(8,117 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option