General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 30 yrs ago today: Ukraine disarmed itself voluntarily in exchange for security assurances from US, Britain and Russia [View all]moniss
(6,460 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
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):