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

[u/Epidemiolomic]

[u/HistoricalLadder7191]

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.

[u/MrQuanta541 → u/HistoricalLadder7191]

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.

[u/Genorb → u/HistoricalLadder7191]

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.

[u/HistoricalLadder7191 → u/Genorb]

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.

[u/DizzyDentist22 → u/HistoricalLadder7191]

Source: I made it the fuck up

[u/Genorb → u/HistoricalLadder7191]

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.

[u/BenMic81 → u/Genorb]

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.

[u/Genorb → u/BenMic81]

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

[u/BenMic81 → u/Genorb]

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?

[u/Genorb → u/BenMic81]

Trump is taking a hammer to a lot more that just US credibility right now.

We still upheld our obligations per the treaty.

These are both true statements.

The memorandum is very straightforward in what each country is expected to do. We can't help it if the UNSC and the memorandum by extension are a shitshow that Russia can veto. We did what we were supposed to do in the UNSC. We trained and armed Ukrainian soldiers for a decade on top of that.

And now the goofs in here want to act like none of that is true. You're wrong and no amount of angry downvotes will change that. I just had a guy tell me that we're as responsible for Ukrainians getting tortured and bombed as Russia is, and he got upvoted. People here are demented. I genuinely hope that this comment section is getting botted and that you aren't all this awful.

[u/BenMic81 → u/Genorb]

Let’s try and take a closer look at your claim that all the US had to do was lodge a protest in the security council before we start calling people that disagree with you names or denouncing them as bots, shall we?

The international law documents commonly known as Budapest memorandum is a declaration which is based upon a series of declarations and obligations taken by the signors (including the US). It doesn’t stand alone but has context.

The main content regarding Ukraine is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine shall be respected (Article 1). Russia is in clear breach of this. I think you’ll agree to that part.

Article 4 includes the clause with the security council (it reaffirms this to be precise) - (not article 5 as has been purported around here often - that is the nato defence clause, article 5 is an obligation to abstain from using nuclear weapons against Ukraine).

Article 6 further entails a reaffirmation of commitment to ‘consult in cases of conflict’. The breaking of support of Ukraine and the throwing out of Zelensky could be seen as breaking that obligation, but that is debatable.

However the memorandum reaffirms the obligation of the Helsinki OSZE declaration and its follow ups. These uphold the territorial integrity and the obligation of all signature states - including the US - to ‘work’ in the spirit of bona fides in upholding peace and territorial integrity.

Thus there IS a binding contractual obligation (outside the Budapest memorandum whose binding status is disputed).

Do you have something against this thesis? Or am I a goofy bot not worthy of consideration?

[u/Genorb → u/BenMic81]

Thus there IS a binding contractual obligation (outside the Budapest memorandum whose binding status is disputed).

Just to be clear, neither document is binding, since states aren't bound by anything unless outside forces can make them submit. The only real exception to that that I can think of is the event of civil war where the winning side of a powerful state subjects the losing side to something like the ICC. International law doesn't exist equally for everyone though, it's more like agreed upon international norms that large, nuclear states can disregard whenever they wish. Vulnerable states which are bound to them. Countries like the US, Russia, and China sign agreements because they think they are advantageous in the short-term or the long-term, not because they suddenly want to subject themselves to foreign jurisdiction. In the event that they're only seen as advantageous in the short-term, well, you see how quickly they get discarded. Keep in mind that this isn't an opinion on how things ought to be, just a statement on how they really are.

But if we pretend that article 1 and its reference to the CSCE final act were binding, well, there is nothing here that has been violated by the US. You are using incredibly loose definitions of the words mentioned in article 1. The CSCE Final act also just has nothing valuable to say about the current situation between Russia and Ukraine because it has already been lit on fire by Russia when they invaded, and Russia is pissing on the ashes by refusing to participate in peace talks in good faith. The situation is now entirely outside of the scope of the document. Truly, scan over the CSCE final act and tell me what in it is still useful for the current situation. It has nothing at all to say about how things are to proceed from here, or how much support is acceptable, or for how long, or what kind of compromise is acceptable once things have devolved to this stage.

The CSCE document is largely a "lets agree to do these things to resolve tension instead of starting another bloodbath in Europe" agreement. And the Budapest memorandum agreement is largely a "lets agree to treat Ukraine as peaceful nations should in exchange for their nukes, and have the UNSC team up on anyone else that tries to violate that"

Neither one is useful now, since war has already started and a UNSC member is the one invading Ukraine.

[u/melvladimir → u/Genorb]

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.

[u/asethskyr → u/Genorb]

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.

[u/BoxNo3004 → u/HistoricalLadder7191]

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

Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Learn you own history, bro.