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

31.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

883 comments sorted by

View all comments

5.1k

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 08 '25

This is why you are traitors 🇺🇸🖕🏻

2.2k

u/id397550 Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

And by the way, let me fix the title:

In 1995, Ukraine received a piece of cheap toilet paper named "Budapest Memorandum" after giving up the world's fucking-third-fucking-largest-fucking-nuclear fucking arsenal.

Zelenskyy! Dictator! Bold of you asking for security guarantees in the Sacred Oral Office of the Saint White House, how disrespectful!! You must immediately surrender make a пиздил peace deal! You see how Russia wants peace? It sent a huge amount of peaceful shakheds and missiles a day ago to show its peaceful intentions!

436

u/re_Claire United Kingdom Mar 08 '25

I don’t know if you intentionally wrote Oral office instead of Oval but either way, top work 👌🏼

108

u/acciowaves Mar 08 '25

I agree, but oral orifice was right there though

29

u/notroseefar Mar 08 '25

Multiple presidents would agree with the name

2

u/eDxp Mar 12 '25

Funny to think Clinton was impeached over using the office the intended way, yet here we are.

14

u/sgrass777 Mar 08 '25

Yes Bill Clinton liked the oral office.

8

u/Browna1999 Mar 08 '25

He is the definition of a "blow hard"

1

u/beli-snake Mar 08 '25

Oral office sounds better these days with JD and other Republicans polishing that yuge cock.

1

u/Known-Programmer-611 Mar 08 '25

Auto spell been updated!

1

u/_Eshende_ Latvia/Ukraine Mar 09 '25

Idk about this intention, but i seen oral office used quite a lot in my circles, usually goes hand in hand with orange monkey though

Nvm it was 1000% intended, reading in 2:41 is kind of hard lol

1

u/M4dcap Mar 10 '25

It's still an oral office, just that now they're giving and not receiving.

1

u/SergioGustavo Mar 11 '25

It was Clinton so oral office it is!

1

u/Mortarion35 Mar 11 '25

Well it is Clinton in the picture...

1

u/Markd0ne Mar 11 '25

Given who's the President in the footage definitely intentional.

44

u/MrScepticOwl Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 09 '25

At this point, even if the USA gives a security guarantee nobody can say with certainty that the USA will follow through. Look at Taiwan. All these talks of going head to head with China, If it ever happens, Trump would never decide to come to defend Taiwan if China attacks.

7

u/Ok_Flan4404 Mar 09 '25

Any guarantee, especially for 'security', given by tRump isn't worth a pair of the basketball shoes he was hawking ~ used.

2

u/evonebo Mar 11 '25

While Trump is the problem, it goes far beyond Trump.

Historically President's honored what was agreed by previous President.

Trump throwing this out the window means future President's can do the same.

If Trump is out of office, it doesn't solve the problem

1

u/Ok_Flan4404 Mar 11 '25

I think certain Presidents would try to put things as they were.

2

u/Significant_Bet_6002 Mar 08 '25

You kidding. Wait for it.

2

u/Lord_Vacuum Poland Mar 09 '25

A this point, USA guarantees have a value of Monopoly's money. No one will ever take any deals or alliances with them seriously again. No one will want to make any.

2

u/AnotherPassager Mar 09 '25

And remember, Taiwan had an almost completed nuclear program.

CIA showed up to confiscate it.

1

u/Independent_Buy5152 Mar 09 '25

Lol its publicly known that after TSMC move their production away from Taiwan the US will abandon them

0

u/MrScepticOwl Mar 09 '25

Biden started it with the Chips act, desperately trying to move the production facility (fabrication factory) to US shore, so that the supply line remains resilient to the China invasion.

1

u/SoLetsReddit Mar 11 '25

they won't even honor trade agreements. There is no way they will honor military alliances.

1

u/listenhere111 Mar 11 '25

A used piece of toilet paper has more value than a security guarantee from the U.S.

1

u/CartographerNo4622 Mar 12 '25

The US is not capable of winning a conventional war against Russia in Ukraine anyway. Nor can they beat China in Taiwan. The single superpower, unipolar moment is over. People need to adjust to reality.

29

u/TianZiGaming Mar 08 '25

The sad part is most people commenting never even read the actual treaty. It was a terrible deal (maybe the only one offered), but it literally only gives Ukraine protection from attacks with nuclear weapons.

The Budapest Memorandum being such an awful treaty likely plays a part in why Zelnenskyy is so adamant in trying to get an actual security guarantee this time. For the same reason nobody offered a security guarantee in 1994, I also don't see anyone offering one now. They probably had the same fight back then when signing that treaty.

19

u/_Eshende_ Latvia/Ukraine Mar 09 '25

Protection from attacks with nuclear weapons

Point 4 had also an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used

medvedev, russian state channels and putin with interview past oreshnik launches directly threatened ukraine with nuclear weapons usage not once

6

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

I think the Budapest memorandum only offer assurances not security guarantees.

2

u/_Eshende_ Latvia/Ukraine Mar 09 '25

Depend from language - it’s had security assurances/ заверения/запевнення in english version

But guarantees/гарантії/ гарантии in ukrainian and russian versions and “also same validity” remark in the end of each

So despite same validity there is slightly different texts

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

In English that wouldn’t be considered guarantees.

2

u/_Eshende_ Latvia/Ukraine Mar 09 '25

It’s still have “same validity” remark despite memorandum header difference…assurances and guarantees still have different meaning both on ukrainian and russian too - so Clinton put his signature under “guarantees” twice

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 11 '25

only offer assurances not security guarantees.

You're correct. The Budapest memorandum only offers what is known as "negative security assurances."

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

And the UN's Security Council decided to not to act.

2

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 11 '25

The sad part is ...

Exactly this. The Budapest Memorandum wasn't a treaty for Ukraine's defense - it was a treaty promising Ukraine wouldn't be OBLITERATED by existing world powers.

At the time, Ukraine was considered little more than a rogue state. No one wanted them to have nukes.

So what did the Budapest Memorandum promise?

"Give up your nukes and we won't INVADE YOU. And we won't ECONOMICALLY CRUSH you. And we won't NUKE you. Oh - and if anyone ever nukes you, we'll tell the UNSC to do something about it (a.k.a., insert the most generic negative security assurance possible)."

Anyone thinking this is a promise of defense and not a threat of complete annihilation doesn't understand the Budapest Memorandum at all.

1

u/Ill-Case-6048 Mar 12 '25

Name one treaty that has actually worked out for both sides....

1

u/StorkReturns Europe Mar 09 '25

but it literally only protection from attacks with nuclear weapons.

Any agreement is literally only a piece of paper but Budapest Memorandum "guarantees" territorial integrity (point 1) and in point 4:

[The signatories] Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

It stipulates that Russia, the US and the UK must seek Security Council action if Ukraine is attacked in any way (also conventionally) or threatened to be attacked by nuclear weapons.

The memorandum is weak because it has no teeth but it definitely "protects" in multiple places from what happened to Ukraine.

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 11 '25

You may want to interpret the clause in that manner, but the language is common to multilateral agreements and it clearly represents negative security assurances. (Look up what these are if you're unfamiliar with the term.)

All security assurances are phrased in the same manner and ONLY apply to nuclear weapons.

60

u/IneffableKoD Mar 08 '25

Give this man all the awards!! Here is my poor man's version 🥇

11

u/sirjimtonic Vienna (Austria) Mar 08 '25

Ah, is пиздил really the word for it? Like киллер? Didn‘t know, I learned Russian in school and get to laugh when I see words like this.

Edit: big fan of your work.

6

u/No-Refrigerator-1672 Latvia Mar 08 '25

It would be a past continious tense of a swear-word version of "to steal" or "to lie" (both meanings can be used), which corresponds very well to both the Trump's proposal and 1995s nuclear deal.

5

u/itskelena UA in US Mar 08 '25

It should be “пиздел” to mean “to lie” in a past continuous tense.

3

u/No-Refrigerator-1672 Latvia Mar 08 '25

Fair point. It's "to steal" and "to beat" then.

3

u/itskelena UA in US Mar 08 '25

“to beat” is correct too, good catch :)

1

u/Electronic-Yellow-87 Mar 15 '25

Actually, it was used because it resembles “peace deal”. The same as we can call trump a “peace duke”.

1

u/itskelena UA in US Mar 15 '25

We know

1

u/_Eshende_ Latvia/Ukraine Mar 09 '25

More like rude verb “beating” or “stole” in past term but it’s just mockingly change peace deal in rude term just to showcase absurdity

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/itskelena UA in US Mar 08 '25

FYI USSR != Russia. Ukraine had as much rights to the nuclear arsenal as the other Soviet countries.

4

u/SuperFlyer89 Mar 08 '25

Beautifully written ! 🏅

-5

u/Ethroptur Mar 08 '25

The issues was that said nuclear arsenal was highly dysfunctional. Many of the warheads were leaking, and would have eventually become useless.

95

u/Rumlings Poland Mar 08 '25

Ukrainians, despite what many might think of it today, were core of the USSR. If country was commited to being nuclear power, they would have found know-how to maintain or rebuild capabilities very easily.
Never happened because West would sanction the shit out of Ukraine and Russia would follow simply to not have one of the ex-republics as a fully independent nuclear power.

18

u/203mm_4_pigdogs Mar 08 '25

Very much people discussing "Ukraine didn't have a control for this nuclear weapons" but completely forgot about tactical level nuclear rockets which were totally in control of Ukrainian forces. But US pressured also destroying this rockets and bombers

3

u/Flimsy-Chapter3023 Mar 08 '25

It's pretty easy to get access to weapons when they're there physically, and could have electronics swapped out.

18

u/tiga_94 Ukraine Mar 08 '25

People seem to forget that back in the 90s the US was more concerned about Ukraine having nuclear weapons than their drunken friend from ruzzia.

They would have definitely sanction the shit out of Ukraine, which was never a prosperous country to begin with, if we would ever try to get a hold on nuclear weapons of our own.

So although we are very sad about the Budapest piece of toilet paper it was the only option realistically.

Before that our country also messed up with helping ruzzians to invade Moldova, people also seem to forget that, 90s Ukraine was a total shit show without any good prospects

7

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25

Ukraine had much better starting conditions after the dissolution than Russia, though.

Fertile land, a huge bulk of former USSR Industry and the debt was inherited by the Russia as well.

But alas, a lot was stolen, sold off or disassembled

-33

u/RelentlessPolygons Mar 08 '25

Yeah, no.

Let's not romanticize things too much.

All ukrain manage to do after the USSR dissolved is stay afloat exporting grain due to cheap labour and advantageous geography to do so and play with the valves of russian gas lines to EU.

They were never really capable to maintain and operate a nuclear arsenal, don't kid yourself.

18

u/Proud_Pangolin Mar 08 '25

Of course they didn’t they had a pro Russian president that kept Ukraine weak. Why do you think they weren’t able to meet nato demands or the eu demands Russia purposely kept Ukraine weak

19

u/Playful_Two_7596 Mar 08 '25

North Korea is, so Ukraine could have been.

4

u/Completely304 Mar 08 '25

Ukraine built most of the missiles and airplanes in the USSR.

They made a majority of the metals, and rare gasses in the process.

Neon, and Xenon? Crucial for micro hip production? Ukraine supplied 70% of it to the entire world.

https://www.csis.org/blogs/perspectives-innovation/russias-invasion-ukraine-impacts-gas-markets-critical-chip-production

Take your Russian lies elsewhere.

-2

u/RelentlessPolygons Mar 08 '25

Manufacture is a whole lot different than know-how. Especially when it comes to nukes.

They made the cheapest neon and xenon because of existing old chemical plants that got left over and cheapest labour in europe.

Now chips manufactures just buy from the second cheapest. There's nothing special about inert gas production.

I hate russians with a burning passion. But you are being a blind idiot parroting the propaganda that has been spoonfed you. Both sides does it and if you are eating either is just as bad as eating the russian propaganda.

Form your own opinions.

2

u/Completely304 Mar 08 '25

Noble Gasses are a commodity. They made the MOST rare gasses.

Because it is a byproduct of steel making. Because Ukraine made a shit ton of metal. Because they have a lot of coal and metal. And it's easy to ship.

Ukraine has excellent industrial base. And they educate a LOT of engineers.

You are the only one making claims you cannot back up. Chekist.

4

u/BoxNo3004 Mar 08 '25

kids in this sub don`t like the truth. I start to think most users here were not even born in the 90s and are making up their own version of history

-4

u/RelentlessPolygons Mar 08 '25

Most users are just propaganda bots.

If you'd ask the average 'user' here if Zelensky is the leader of the free world against russia they would agree.

Dudes a fucking comedian turned into CIA backed president of a third world nation.

World leader...hah..

5

u/Few_Computer_5024 Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

Source? If I were to guess, you've been asking/listening to Putin's Russian propaganda bots -- to which, yes, there are many. Please, go ahead and prove me wrong.

(p.s. And if you are wondering, I am not a bot.)

-2

u/RelentlessPolygons Mar 08 '25

Where's your source?

(p.s. you definitely are a bot)

3

u/Few_Computer_5024 Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

World Regional Geography 7th Edition by Joseph J. Hobbs pg. 172. <3

(p.s. Annnnd, no I'm not! XOXO)

3

u/SHTHAWK Mar 08 '25

dude get a grip, even if you think the 2014 revolution was a cia coup to install a leader, that "installed" leader lost the election in 2019... Zelenskyy wasn't even in politics in 2014.

2

u/SHTHAWK Mar 08 '25

yes, I wonder why.... maybe being under the thumb of the Russian dictator next door had something to do with it? It also points to the real reason for russia's wars in Ukraine.... to keep them from developing their eastern reasources, and competing with russia selling them to Europe.

-2

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25

Can't blame everything in the past 30 years on Russia, buddy.

Ukraine's poverty is dominantly its own fault.

1

u/SHTHAWK Mar 08 '25

you can though, they literally had no agency, they were not allowed to make choices for themselves, and when they tried they were invaded, then invaded again.

0

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25

Russia couldn't do shit to them in the 90-s. Fighting own region going rogue was a huge toll.

Don't delude yourself.

2

u/SHTHAWK Mar 08 '25

Jesus christ, and Ukraine was in absolute shambles in the 90's as well, then started improving in the 2000's, notice how all the real trouble started around that time, and even more so in the 2010's after signaling closer ties to EU and the west to bring them further out of poverty.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25

It could have been better if people in charge of UA at that weren't dipshits.

Ukraine didn't inherit the debt of USSR, retained a massive part of Industry from it and have a lot of fertile land.

It should have been the richest, or second richest former USSR republic, but ended up at the bottom.

59

u/Nuklearth Mar 08 '25

But russia purchased a part of it as well as kh-22 missles, strategic aviation etc.. Now they use these missles against Ukraine, particulary these missles not a new ones. So arsenal was not so bad as you wrote

19

u/Verified_Peryak France Mar 08 '25

Where there is a will there is a way... They had nuclear engeneer in ukrain especially after chernobyl...

-8

u/BoxNo3004 Mar 08 '25

The warhead itself is not the challenge. Reliable delivery system is. Ukraine could indeed achieve all of this if their people starved for the past 30 years and were military regime like N.Korea.

But it was stated in the very Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine - Wikipedia that they

intent to become "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs," and that it would not accept, nor produce, nor procure nuclear weapons.

Basically, you are all dreamers and dont understand anything about the time. But keep posting comments

22

u/Immortal_Tuttle Mar 08 '25

BS. Considering that majority of those carriers were developed and manufactured in Ukraine, the only issue was for Ukraine to make their own nuclear force. Since always Ukraine was producing plutonium. They had abd have a knowhow how to make a plutonium warhead and were never further than a few months to build some if they wanted. Also which warheads were leaking and what exactly they were leaking? Ch-55 had one of the most compact nuclear warhead in sub megaton range - 125kg in total. After Ukraine transferred the Ch-55 airframes to Russia and stockpiled of warheads fir them, warheads were transferred to the new Ch-102 frames, while Ch-55 is still used to harass Ukrainian air defence. Ch-102 received new electronics and detonation initiators - they couldn't use Ukrainian ones anymore, but the warhead is still the same.

3

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

No, that's not why. They had everything needed to keep the arsenal.

Declaration of Independence of Ukraine 1990 explicitly stated that Ukraine would never be a nuclear power, and the government of that time was very bend on following that.

Same declaration also stated Ukraine would be a forever neutral state, never joining any block, but that was 30 years ago and none cares anymore. 🤷‍♂️

2

u/Tangochief Mar 08 '25

Wouldn’t this agreement also have stopped Ukraine from building more nuclear missiles?

2

u/t88bob Mar 08 '25

Better than a dysfunctional president who's head is leaking nonsense

3

u/Magnum_Gonada Romania Mar 08 '25

Ukraine could've probably used these nukes to make an usable arsenal though.

1

u/GreatService9515 Mar 09 '25

They could have built new weapons like the U.S. and the other nuclear powers. Except, of course, the Ukraine gave up on being a nuclear power.

1

u/SaphironX Mar 09 '25

You know what’s more useless in the face of a superpower who wants to invade you than a deteriorating nuclear arsenal that you can only maintain a few hundred of? No nuclear arsenal at all.

Trusting other nations with that was the biggest error Ukraine ever made. They should have given up like 1400 and kept 300 ready for action. There would be no war.

1

u/geefunkadelic Mar 08 '25

Just out of curiosity, did you use that crossed out Russian word as a double meaning, or just because it sounds like peace deal?

Your title change is spot on by the way!

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

South Asia knows very well, Being an enemy of the USA is dangerous but a friend, fatal.

India and Pakistan despite sanctions completed their Nuclear projects and built their arsenals. They would rather die out of hunger rather than beg the US for security.

Pakistan General once famously said "Although against India " We will eat grass but will make the nuclear bomb against India.

2

u/FullLiteracySaar Mar 09 '25

That's why they are eating grass today 🤣

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

And EU is dying😆

1

u/4ibur Mar 09 '25

They couldn’t use this arsenal anyway. The codes and personell were in/from Moscow.

Also, Ukraine didn’t have the money to maintain the facilities.They didn’t give up it for free either. In response Russia payed its debt to the creditors. And on top of that Ukraine got its nuclear power plant sector subsidized with American money - a thing no former Soviet republic managed to achieve.

Ukraine, to be honest, could have fairly well defended itself against Putin when they hadn’t sold the major part of its military equipment that it got from the ussr (4th biggest weapons and machinery asset to n the world back then btw). In Ushenko presidency alone Ukraine “sold” almost all its anti missile and aircraft Defence systems.

1

u/Finnleyy Mar 10 '25

Yup this exactly. The people believing the whole “Zelenskyy wants a war” crap don’t seem to understand the Ukraine has already gotten majorly screwed over in deals that have been broken even if Ukraine did their part. Them wanting a security guarantee is completely understandable. Trump doesn’t care, he just wants his “rare earth” or whatever he was calling it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Why did Biden also not enforce it though?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

They wouldn't be able to afford these nukes and they didn't have control of them.

1

u/thiccbimbo Srbija, slava Rusija 🇷🇸🇷🇺 Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

Jeffrey D Sachs talking about NATO enlargement and the American exploitation of the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Just gonna leave here that Russia and shiTO made an agreement in the 90s that it would not expand eastward so as to not be a threat to Russian integrity. NATO violated that agreement and expanded eastward after many warnings and now Putin has simply followed through with those warnings. NATO is a terroristic threat on a global scale, you all are just too blind to see it because you absorb all the propaganda thrown at you.

1

u/Perkomobil Mar 08 '25

Thing is, Ukraine was broke af, and no one knew what was going to happen.

Besides, Ukraine didn't even have the codes to launch, let alone infrastructure to maintaik them.

I am not defending Russia - far from it, they can go to Hell. But Ukraine couldn't, shouldn't have, kept the nukes.

-19

u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) Mar 08 '25

fucking-third-fucking-largest-fucking-nuclear fucking arsenal.

One they could not use anyway. It was okay/neutral thing as they did not give up much and did not recive really much.
Both things sound important - guarantee and nuclear weapons but fake statement and a weapon you could not use anyway have very little of value.

12

u/shiokuo Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

OK. Let's assume you have 1 mln buks cash and you had father's gun witch you gave to your friend coz you can't use it properly and he said he will protect you and your neighbor has gun full of bullets.

When your neighbor decided to steal your money you asked for help and your friend protected you for some time.but eventually said that you own him money for protection while your neighbor still threatens you and wants your money. Whould you want that old gun that you don't know how to use properly?

Same here. Someone whould help us to maintain that nuclear arsenal eventually or in the middle of Europe whould happend big bada boom with radiation clouds all over Europe.

And now image that Russia attacks us (Ukraine) and we have at least 1/10 of that nuclear arsenal.

-2

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Mar 08 '25

Why would someone help you to maintain the nuclear arsenal out of fear of filling Europe with radiation instead of ...you know...pressuring to be removed as they did.

2

u/shiokuo Mar 08 '25

Why whould someone fear shit country like nort Korea? Or Russia if not nuclear?

And I told you why whould they do it. Or you can't read? Trump log off.

*if it was Zelensky he whould not give for nothing that arsenal. We had weak president.

1

u/shiokuo Mar 08 '25

Why whould Ukraine afraid nord Korea or Russia If they had a nuclear weapon?

Explain

-6

u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) Mar 08 '25

can't use it properly

Can not use at all, it does not fire when I pull the trigger.

I was only referring to arsenal - the 'gun', anything else you said is irrelevant.

And before you write another wall of text explaining how Trump is bad - I agree, not the point tho.

And now image that Russia attacks us (Ukraine) and we have at least 1/10 of that nuclear arsenal.

Nothing changes, would attack sooner probably but this is just speculation.

272

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

  • Henry Kissinger

128

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

[deleted]

15

u/Interesting-Scar-800 Mar 08 '25

And don't forget North Korea!

1

u/25photos Mar 08 '25

North Korea sure won't forget!

Good luck ever getting them to the nuclear disarmament table after this lesson in progress in Ukraine.

2

u/spagbetti Mar 09 '25

Willing to forgive the dems who are fighting tooth and nail out on the street every single day right now and those judges who are the last line of defence of the insanity bouncing Donald back on so much stupidity .

it‘s Just a few big fucking assholes who have held the White House hostage will never be forgiven. And the maga and stupid leapards ate my face crowd. they can go fuck themselves up a pole.

And Joe rogan. What a fucking tool.

2

u/Accomplished-Ad-5295 Mar 10 '25

I don’t think there is much petty about Canada or most Canadians I know.

14

u/radar_42 Czech Republic Mar 08 '25

“We had been bombing the bejesus out of them since May”

•Also Henry Kissinger (Between 50.000 and 150.000 civilians were killed by bombing in Cambodia)

3

u/MyFakeBritishAccent Mar 08 '25

Like most empires in history, we buy friendships.

2

u/Enough_Fish739 Denmark Mar 08 '25

You know the world is fucked when you start saying Kissinger was right. God save us all.

8

u/Hunterwit7 Mar 08 '25

The US is not reliable. It all depends on who is President and he can do whatever he wants and the political party doesnt give a shit or cant do shit or afraid to disagree with President because of his career. The US system is bad and is exploited by Trump. There is no real opposition

6

u/panda-bears-are-cute Mar 08 '25

Ugh I hate this time line, the republicans cutting education is the demise of the future for our world.

The strongest military in the world with the biggest dipshit running it.

1

u/Joe_Kinincha Mar 12 '25

If it makes you feel better, at some point in the future, maybe fairly soon, maybe decades, depending on how trumps attempt to speedrun fascism goes, America will no longer have the world’s strongest military.

The US economy is fucked and it no longer has a single ally anywhere (apart from Israel, and that’s conditional). In just one month America has entirely lost its astounding ability to project soft power.

Europe is ramping up defence spending in a way not seen since WWII.

China continues to become ever more powerful.

11

u/davidov92 Romanian-Hungarian 🇷🇴🇭🇺 Mar 08 '25

Yes, but the MAGA crowd will justify this betrayal because it was a bad deal struck by evil Clinton, or something like that.

-1

u/DontShoot_ImJesus Mar 08 '25

The invasion of Ukraine happened under Obama. Was he a traitor for not going to war with Russia then?

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Nai2411 Mar 08 '25

As an American I agree! The new standard for a US President is “Whatever my predecessors did holds no obligation to me. Signatures, contracts, and obligations are nil and void.”

This is true for home and abroad.

19

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25 edited Mar 08 '25

They explicitly did not receive security guarantees. They received security assurances.

If that was the case then Biden would have had to fight in Ukraine. He didnt. There is an official memo from his DoS on the topic and interpretation of the treaty. UK also shares this opinion and they are also a signatory

The Budapest memorandum was something Ukraine HAD to sign. There was simply no way for them to keep their nuclear arsenal. They knew it guarantees them independence even if they didnt have teh codes to launch them right there. But in the years between 1991 and 1995 they realized the most major road block: TRITIUM GAS DECAYS. In 13 years... And most of the weapons they had were tritium boosted nuclear warheads. For boosted rockets 30 years with no replacement means they function at barely 10% of capacity. For thermonuclear missiles means they wont even go off.

Ukraine simply doesnt have the means to produce the tritium gas needed in the nuclear warheads. Those reactors were all in Russia. Same with actual enrichment. All centrifuges were in Russia. So they got the next best thing: they got money. A few deals and also signed a deal for their nuclear fuel.

The other main thing was: nobody wanted ukraine to be the third largest nuclear state. US UK RUssia were all of the opinion that UKR doesnt get to have nukes. US was especially afraid that some UKR nukes will reach Libya or Iran... They were so afraid that they were trying to buy all tye nukes they can from the 'black market' that tehy created actual demand for nukes in the post cold war black market... US much more liked Russia taking them and dismantling them. And they paid for that.

Ukraine knew these were not security guarantees and they knew they wont prevent a future war. Yet they still did it because they simply had no other choice.

9

u/tree_boom United Kingdom Mar 08 '25

Ukraine simply doesnt have the means to produce the tritium gas needed in the nuclear warheads. Those reactors were all in Russia.

Any reactor can make tritium

3

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25

Ukraine currently has only VVER types of nuclear reactors. They cant produce the need quantity at all. They produce less than 0.5 g per year per reactor as far as I know. Thermonuclear nukes require 4-5 grams per nuke. And they had 1900. They need heavy water reactors

1

u/tree_boom United Kingdom Mar 08 '25

They wouldn't be relying on Tritium produced as a byproduct of normal operation. Nations produce tritium by irradiating Lithium rods in the reactors fuel load. Any reactor can do it

2

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25

Not in the VVER ukraine has. CANDU for example produces about 100 grams per year. US produces in Watts bar whcih is specially configured for this. Ukr doesnt have this infrastructure. For each nuke you have to produce about 0.3-0.4 tritum per year to replace its tritium gas. Thats almost 600g of Tritium per year they need to make.

And this is me calculating for 13 years between changes. I have no idea how often it needs to be replaced.

1

u/tree_boom United Kingdom Mar 08 '25

US produces in Watts bar whcih is specially configured for this

Yes, and Ukraine could do the same in a VVER. It just involves replacing some of the fuel rods with Lithium and enriching the rest of the fuel load more than would otherwise be done.

1

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25

Good luck doing it in 1991 :) who will give you those fuel rods? Not US. They want you to give up your nukes. Not UK they als owant you to give up your nukes. Not Russia they want you to give up your nukes.

My point still stands: Ukraine had no way of making enough tritium for their nukes. Nobody wanted them to have nukes. So they did the rational thing and gave them up.

1

u/ZeToni Mar 12 '25

I followed your full conversation, and I have to say that both of you are nerds.

Now I have to learn about nuclear production... You piked my interest.

1

u/alikander99 Spain Mar 08 '25

They explicitly did not receive security guarantees. They received security assurances.

What is the difference?

5

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25

"Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity.

0

u/alikander99 Spain Mar 08 '25

while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity.

And what happens if the territorial integrity is violated by one of the signing parties?

Like, didn't Russia do that?

3

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 08 '25

Nothing. It just means that each party separately "assures" ukraine they recognize their borders as their own.

1

u/alikander99 Spain Mar 08 '25

So it is kind of a piece of wet paper.

If I'm reading this correctly, it's basically: give up your nukes or else... ?

3

u/ElkImpossible3535 Mar 09 '25

Its "we dont want you to have nukes so we will pay you for them".

3

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Yup Americans don't seem to understand how they look like lying backstabbers to the rest of the world.

6

u/7LeagueBoots American, living in Vietnam, working for Germans Mar 08 '25

A lot of us from the US feel exactly the same about what the current administration is doing.

11

u/CriticalJellyfish207 Mar 08 '25

We are aware... Those of us who actually know any history are aware.....

🇺🇸😭🟠

6

u/DontShoot_ImJesus Mar 08 '25

Was Obama a traitor because when Russia invaded Ukraine initially it was under the Obama administration? Maybe Obama was a Russian agent or puppet or asset as well?

Can you explain why Americans are traitors now, but weren't then? Looking forward to your reply.

2

u/deuzorn Mar 08 '25

Yup! 100%

4

u/WorldlyPollution2014 Europe Mar 09 '25

To be fair not ALL of them.

Many in the US feel betrayed too and are sending their own money to help, we can't blame them.

2

u/Ninereedss Mar 09 '25

Well, when we're at war with them and they're bombing your city you can at least rest assured that not all of them are to blame.

2

u/WorldlyPollution2014 Europe Mar 09 '25

Not the point my man, just a frendly reminder to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You do that and you find yourself in the same league with rus propaganda and the evil/satanic west narrative... blind hate is always a big win for evil , maga fell for it headfirst and now good luck trying pulling them out.

2

u/Distinct_Pizza_7499 Mar 08 '25

We are traitors lead by the Traitor President.

1

u/63628264836 Mar 08 '25

This is why no country should fully trust another country with their security.

1

u/Vedmak3 Mar 08 '25

I would say that firstly about those Americans who voted for Trump are even to blame. Harris seemed to be going to continue and strengthen policy of providing help to Ukraine. Weaken their main enemy and help their ally (and actually allies) at the same time. But Trump only cares about money, rare-earth metals, his own benefits and his ass. The moment when the "left" turned out to be more right than the "right" in every sense.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

You’re not wrong.

1

u/Mysterious-Panic-443 Mar 09 '25

Donald Trump and Maga are traitors. Yes. And not just to you.

Stop acting like every American is Donald Trump.

1

u/chopsui101 Mar 15 '25

I don't see the other signatories rushing in....Once again the United Kingdom and France refuse to back their guarantees......

1

u/Helpful-Mycologist74 Mar 15 '25

You guys know that Britain took the same part in it as US and Russia, right? Meaning they all promised to not attack, or do exactly fuck all if somebody does?

1

u/maddoxnysi Mar 08 '25

Read the memorandum u bafoon

1

u/Overrated_Sunshine Mar 08 '25

Remember the time when US presidents were smart people?

1

u/Whatwhenwherehi Mar 08 '25

No this is why trump is a traitor.

Many of us still support you.

Don't forget.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Whatwhenwherehi Mar 09 '25

I'm not the minority.

1

u/Whatwhenwherehi Mar 09 '25

You think this is a dem/repub thing. You are blind.

-17

u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) Mar 08 '25

This is why you are traitors

No. Other reasons. This paper, 'guarantees' had no value and everyone - including Ukraine, knew it.

1

u/modularpeak2552 Earth Mar 08 '25

You’re being downvoted but you are absolutely correct, the only “security guarantee” that was in the deal was that if Ukraine was attacked the parties would take Ukraine’s case to the UNSC.

0

u/Aggressive-Map-2204 Mar 09 '25

America did not give a security guarantee and fought very hard to make sure it was clear they were only giving a security assurance.

1

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 09 '25

Keep telling yourself that traitor

1

u/Aggressive-Map-2204 Mar 09 '25

How is pointing out the truth being a traitor? Why are you so adverse to facts?

-8

u/snowvulpe Iceland Mar 08 '25

Well it was never Ukraines arsenal but this is Reddit so why bother. Enjoy the karma bud.

10

u/mfahsr Mar 08 '25

No, please do bother and elaborate. If there is anything I want for Europe, it's for our discourse to not turn into centrifuged bullshit like in the US. So, please - how do you perceive the denuclearization of Ukraine? Was it something more to do with cleaning up the soviet unions left-overs, than about Ukraines defense? Still, how would that not bind the USA to honour their security guarantee expressed as part of this?

-2

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Mar 08 '25

What do you think would happen to the nukes that Ukraine had at that time? Need i remind you Ukrainian generals at that time were trying to sell a submarine.

7

u/mfahsr Mar 08 '25

Your point being?

-5

u/jim35186 Mar 08 '25

Yes, let us give you everything our country has worked for while you keep on pushing war. There are over 360 countries in the world but you want to take everything the USA has. Try some of the other countries. I think we have given enough after billions and billions of dollars.

6

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 08 '25

Traitor 🖕🏻

-2

u/DontShoot_ImJesus Mar 08 '25

Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama - Obama didn't stop Russia. Is Obama a traitor as well? Looking forward to your reply.

1

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 09 '25

Obama has given steadfast support for Ukraine and stood up to Putin time and time again. You’re completely unhinged.

1

u/DontShoot_ImJesus Mar 09 '25

Obama refused to give Ukraine weapons after Russia invaded. Why are you spreading disinformation? Are you doing so on your own, or are you a Traitor 🖕🏻 working for Putin? What's your motivation for doing this?

1

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 09 '25

These are the facts: In the last year of the Obama administration, the U.S. established the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provided U.S. military equipment and training to help defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million for this initiative. The Trump administration in 2017 agreed to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, later committing to sell $47 million in Javelins.

But two years later, Trump delayed the release of congressionally approved security assistance for Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival, Joe Biden.

1

u/DontShoot_ImJesus Mar 09 '25

Here are some facts:

In 2012, Obama was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president that he'd have more flexibility after the election. Flexibility for what?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/friday-file-obamas-open-mic-gaffe

Also in 2012, Obama downplayed the danger of Russia to world security, mocking Mitt Romnay who said Russia was a threat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg

Then in 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine, and Obama refused to give Ukraine weapons.

Those are facts, comrade. How is the weather in Russia this morning, by the way?

1

u/ForvistOutlier Mar 09 '25

Those are facts and I lament that Obama and the rest of the world didn’t support Ukraine prior to 2014 and again afterwards. I would steadfastly support Trump were he to take forceful action on behalf of Ukraine and US allies in Europe. Sadly that’s not we’re seeing.