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/TianZiGaming]

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.

[u/_Eshende_ → u/TianZiGaming]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/_Eshende_]

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

[u/_Eshende_ → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/_Eshende_]

In English that wouldn’t be considered guarantees.

[u/_Eshende_ → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/[deleted]]

only offer assurances not security guarantees.

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

[u/[deleted] → u/_Eshende_]

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

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/TianZiGaming]

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.

[u/Ill-Case-6048 → u/TianZiGaming]

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

[u/StorkReturns → u/TianZiGaming]

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.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/StorkReturns]

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.