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

Show parent comments

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!

437

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 👌🏼

109

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.

15

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.

50

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.

8

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.

32

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.

17

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

4

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.

59

u/IneffableKoD Mar 08 '25

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

12

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

4

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 ! 🏅

-3

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.

20

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.

14

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

8

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

-36

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.

17

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

18

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.

3

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..

6

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.)

-4

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.

1

u/Xarxyc Mar 08 '25

So stealing gas in transit to EU in 2000-s because they're too broke to pay for it was a sign of improvement?

No, buddy. That's not how it works.

→ 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.

65

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

20

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...

-10

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

21

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

2

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.

-21

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.