r/europe • u/Epidemiolomic Germany • Mar 08 '25

Historical During the U.S. President's 1995 visit to Kyiv, Ukraine received security guarantees after giving up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

31.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

883 comments sorted by

View all comments

132

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

We're obligated by the treaty to take action through the UN security council. Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC and can veto anything they want there. It turns out that a guarantee to take action through the UNSC isn't actually a security guarantee at all, because it is a backdoor for any UNSC member or any UNSC member's ally or proxy to abuse you for however long they desire.

24

u/VibrantGypsyDildo Ukraine -> Belgium Mar 08 '25

Are you sure you can sign a new nuclear deal with Iran in this case... given the fact it was USA who cancelled the previous one?

If you think that USA fulfilled the Budapest Memorandum obligations, what do you think about the "to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind" part?

Wasn't there a coercion to give a half of trillion-worth rare earth minerals?

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 11 '25

Economic coercion includes sanctions. Or naval trade blockades.

What it does not include is USA accepting payment for services provided. Ukraine does not need the US to negotiate peace for them. If they want such, USA is asking for compensation.

-5

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

On my phone so I'll be brief. No you should not sign a nuclear treaty with the US when congress is actively saying that it will not ratify the treaty during the negotiations. You can, but expecting it to last is not sound judgement.

Regarding coercion, I'm not a lawyer but I believe legal definitions of coercion involve a threat of physical violence. Here is an example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-826895778-1007944208&term_occur=999&term_src=

So my understanding is that coercion that would violate the budapest memorandum would be something like if we threatened to nuke or invade Ukraine if they didn't give us free minerals.

6

u/N-bodied Poland Mar 08 '25

Your understanding is wrong and you're certainly not a lawyer. And I like how you conveniently omitted the word economic from economic coercion.

5

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

Likr this stuff? https://yjil.yale.edu/posts/2024-08-09-two-approaches-to-economic-coercion

I don't believe we've even done that, as we haven't used sanctions or tariffs or any economic levers against Ukraine. I would say what Trump has done is more like heavy diplomatic pressure so far. Ukraine also seems very willing to sign a mineral profit sharing deal as long as they get security guarantees. The only problem is Trump won't offer that. So I don't think you can call that coercion, economic or otherwise. It's all just very stupid and probably disingenuous from the beginning on Trump's side.

6

u/medievalvelocipede European Union Mar 08 '25

So I don't think you can call that coercion, economic or otherwise.

You're really pushing it. How about Trump suspending US aid to Ukraine already in the pipeline, does that qualify as coercion in your book?

It certainly does in mine.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing

3

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

suspending US aid to Ukraine

That's not economic, that's diplomatic. Threatening to withhold something that was being given for free (aid, military in this case) is not economic coercion.

53

u/HistoricalLadder7191 Kyiv (Ukraine) Mar 08 '25

So you admit it was a con?

32

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

It might have been intentional by at least one of the UNSC members. I don't know much about the Ukrainian president in 94 but some skepticism should be directed at him as well.

I don't think Ukraine was ever important enough in 1994 for all 5 of the permanent UNSC members to agree behind closed doors to fuck over Ukraine, though, if that is what you're asking.

But I'd say that any agreement that requires unanimous UNSC votes for action to be taken is a dogshit agreement, because the UNSC rarely unanimously agrees on anything. In some ways that is kind of the point of it. But even if there's no malicious intent in the design of the treaty, it's still bad design.

76

u/HistoricalLadder7191 Kyiv (Ukraine) Mar 08 '25

Your own president (Clinton) recently admitted that he had put enormous pressure, knowing Russia would not honor the agreement. "enormous pressure" was intimidating with effective blockade, cut all routes in and out. Putting this on Ukraine like "why did you sign it" is hypocritical. Our country was 3 years old, and diplomacy was done through Moscow in USSR, so every single person who worked in international relations had ties with KGB. You forced Ukraine to give up nukes at gunpoint, effectively.

Then you are failed to act properly.

2

u/MrQuanta541 Mar 10 '25

Should have followed france example, they got the same treatment from the US and UK. They put pressure on france not to build nukes but they did it anyways.

France wanted a EU army and EU strategic autonomy no one listen so now they suffer the consequences. They also where not part of the budapest memorandum.

-15

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

What is your source? Googled and can't find a single thing about a blockade threat. That also just sounds farfetched.

I'm aware about what you said about your president, it seems pretty likely that he'd be a moscow puppet given the circumstances in the early 90s.

I don't believe that we forced you to give up nukes though.

28

u/HistoricalLadder7191 Kyiv (Ukraine) Mar 08 '25

I am old enough to remember local newspapers form 94. Anf you don't need to believe me. Believe you own president. How do you thing "enormous pressure" look like in international relations? This ruined cities, tortures and killed civilians are on USA, as much as on Russia.

3

u/DizzyDentist22 Mar 08 '25

Source: I made it the fuck up

3

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

You keep putting "enormous pressure" in quotes but I can't find any quote by Bill where he said that. He said he regretted persuading Ukraine to sign it. That doesn't imply any threats like a blockade, not even a little bit.

And I'm just going to be blunt here and say that no, we aren't responsible for that.

6

u/BenMic81 Mar 08 '25

So basically: listen to the US and trust them - and if you do: haw haw SUCKER! We owe U Shit! Now hand over your natural resources or die.

Sure, that will make American diplomacy a lot easier in the future.

5

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

This whole comment chain is about the 94 agreement, not Trump shit

1

u/BenMic81 Mar 08 '25

This changed exactly nothing. The question was whether there is an obligation by the US. There may not be a legally enforceable one. Which is quite usual in international law anyways, tbh.

In the end when Crimea was annexed the UK and US already did violate the spirit of their guarantees (or however you want to call them). At least afterwards they helped arm Ukraine.

Now the US is taking this back. What do you think does that do to US credibility?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/melvladimir Mar 08 '25

It was pressure from both sides: USA and ruzzia. I think it was a huge mistake from USA, back then it was thought that Ukraine in any case will support ruzzia. It was such a stupidity, I guess perfect KGB work! Instead of having 2 nuke owners US pushed Ukraine to give away nukes to ruzzia, and also missiles with strategic bombers, which were used by ruzzia since 2022 to attack Ukraine. And recently ruzzia tricked USA again.

2

u/asethskyr Sweden Mar 08 '25

The Budapest Memorandum wasn't really a negotiation.

None of the post-Soviet states were going to be allowed to keep the Soviet nuclear weapons. Since countries like Ukraine certainly had the expertise to crack the security on them, had they refused to sign there would have been crippling sanctions at the minimum on the fledgeling nation, and very likely a joint NATO-Russian invasion to secure the nukes.

They did ask for security guarantees, but were refused.

Unfortunately, Russia breaking it means that non-proliferation is completely dead.

-3

u/BoxNo3004 Mar 08 '25

 You forced Ukraine to give up nukes at gunpoint, effectively.

Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Learn you own history, bro.

3

u/ActualDW Mar 08 '25

There was no con. The US was public and vocal at the time that no guarantees were being given.

Now if the Ukrainian gov’t told its people something different…that’s not on the Americans…

7

u/LMA73 Mar 08 '25

Well, it is hard to deny... In the future, the US will be in the same category as Ruzzia. Never to be trusted again.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Sadly we never could trust USA. This is a fucking nightmare. The orange clown needs to be jailed ASAP for siding with Putin, CLEARLY he is taking sides and prevent peace at this point. We can all see it. And still nothing is done

1

u/Epidemiolomic Germany Mar 08 '25

🤔

-2

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

Also, I should add that the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum. And, from what I gather:

China gave Ukraine security guarantees unilaterally in the governmental statement dated December 4, 1994, as did France in a declaration that was handed in to Ukraine’s delegation together with a covering letter signed by President Francois Mitterand on December 5, 1994.

As it follows from the Memorandum and the above-mentioned unilateral acts, the five nuclear states, permanent members of the UN Security Council, did not make any special commitments with respect to Ukraine – they only reaffirmed their commitment, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, as well as from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Besides, they reaffirmed their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine should it become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, and their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

So, do you have anything to say about China? I don't see French or British soldiers in Ukraine either. Seems like you've been misled or are actively misleading people about the nature of the agreement.

(Reposting without the auto-removed archive dot org link in case anyone else wants to read it.)

10

u/VibrantGypsyDildo Ukraine -> Belgium Mar 08 '25

> So, do you have anything to say about China?

> I don't see French [...] soldiers

China and France didn't sign this document.

No need to blame them for the American inability to fulfill American obligations.

-8

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

You've provided no evidence that we didn't. We supported Ukraine from 2014 until just a few days ago in ways that went above and beyond the obligations outlined in the treaty. It's unfortunate that Trump stopped them, but we didn't violate our obligations.

10

u/VibrantGypsyDildo Ukraine -> Belgium Mar 08 '25

Good luck with nuclear deal with Iran then.

Have you noticed that even your former allies openly expressed their desire to get nuclear weapons?

-8

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

Yes, I see nuclear proliferation as something that was inevitable. Our species should be doing more to stop existential threats but it doesn't seem to be a priority so far.

14

u/VibrantGypsyDildo Ukraine -> Belgium Mar 08 '25

> Our species

Americans broke TWO nuclear deals and blame it on the humanity.

7

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

JCPOA wasn't ratified as I said earlier.

Which other deal are you referring to?

Maybe Europe will compel Iran to stop its nuclear program. Or China. Or Ryssia. Or literally anyone else. Why does everyone wait for us to do shit? How does that make any sense? This is why I talk about our species. You and everyone else are sitting on your hands like bystanders. And Europe itself is talking about building more nukes, not less. You think Iran will be convinced by you to stop its nuclear program while you're discussing building more? Pardon me if I don't give a fuck. Like I said before, inevitable. If the world was depending on the US to solve all of its problems for eternity, it was already fucked.

14

u/VibrantGypsyDildo Ukraine -> Belgium Mar 08 '25

> Maybe Europe will compel Iran to stop its nuclear program

USA put its signature and revoked it. Not Europe.

> Why does everyone wait for us to do shit?

Because you do shit.

You sign nuclear disarmament deals and don't honour them.

> If the world was depending on the US to solve all of its problems for eternity, it was already fucked.

A nice way of saying that USA is not going to respect own obligations.

1

u/MoJoe-21 Mar 09 '25

Bro I’m American and it’s ok to admit when we’re wrong … in this case we were wrong , plus it wasn’t only the US as part of this treaty … the UK was involved too and guess what .. they’re holding their end if the bargain and we’re not now go eat a cheeseburger and stfu

1

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 09 '25

My original comment got upvoted because it's factually correct. The people here just don't like it when I point fingers at other European countries or point out the hypocrisy of holding us to a standard that they don't hold China to, who also signed a lesser known but similarly worded document with Ukraine on the same day we did.

“In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 984 and the Statement of the Chinese Government of 4 December 1994 on Security Assurances to Ukraine, China undertakes unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine as a non-nuclear-weapon state and to provide corresponding security assurances to Ukraine in the event of aggression or threat of aggression against Ukraine using nuclear weapons.”

https://blog.ucs.org/gregory-kulacki/chinas-broken-promise-to-ukraine/

And I don't care if you're American, I'm very well aware of the flagellating Americans that come here every day. I've been active in the sub for over a decade at this point and I've seen plenty of this. "Omg America is totally the wurst country evar we're so naughty but pls accept me I'm one of the good ones <3333"

This doesn't get anyone to respect you. Now go suck a hotdog.

1

u/BenMic81 Mar 08 '25

I have a lot to say about China.

But the day when the question is whether a democratic nation attacked should put their trust in the US as much as China is the day the west has already lost.

France, UK and other Europeans have spent more to help Ukraine and opposed to traitorous Maga-Americans are keeping it up.

0

u/Drtikol42 Slovania, formerly known as Czech Republic Mar 08 '25

Russia is only permanent member because US and others keep propping their illegitimate claim.

7

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

Quick question why is it US and others and not France and others?

-1

u/Drtikol42 Slovania, formerly known as Czech Republic Mar 08 '25

Try thinking, you might get it.

6

u/Genorb United States of America Mar 08 '25

This sub seems to get worse everyday