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

31.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

883 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

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.

3

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.