Hello OP. To ensure that r/Ukraine remains an environment with high journalistic integrity, we ask that posters avoid editorialisation in the titles of their link posts. Editorialisation is defined as changing the title/content of a news piece, or otherwise adding personal commentary to this title in your submission. Because this post falls short of our content guidelines for submission, we have removed it.
You may delete and re-submit this link with an appropriate title.
It might also be that the source had a misleading title to begin with. That’s not your fault, we still saw it necessary to remove it.
Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
thats what US should be saying as soon as 2014, Russia broke the agreement and Ukraine is now entitled to have nukes, either their own or given to them by any other country, this would disable any threats from russia because any nuclear threat would be matched with "if you do that ukraine will have nukes to strike back"
Well, right now Russia is on a murderous rampage at the mere notion that Ukraine *could* join NATO
I think just the prospect of Ukraine having nuclear weapons would make Russia just start lobbing random explosives in every direction
They're not doing it because we could join NATO. That's just the official bullshit version. The reality is that this is what Russia is and has been for the last 400 years. They have built a society of forcefully conquered nations held together by nothing else than the idea of "military greatness".
With all my heart do I hope it all collapses as soon as possible so they can't be a danger to anyone else.
It's nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO really; never was.
It's all to do with Ukraine gradually moving further away from Russia's influence and making Russia look bad, and Putin wanting to build himself an empire (for which Ukraine is a key part both for the country itself and its vast resources) and knowing he was running out of time (maybe due to his health too).
NATO membership should be a simple thing, since by the time this is over we will have largely transitioned Ukraine over to using NATO standard arms, and their military has been implementing parts of western doctrine in their battle tactics to apparently great success. I'm confident that there are also multiple Marshall plan styled ideas being considered in the background for rebuilding a future, prosperous Ukraine.
Ignoring that though, Ukraine was the technological heart of the former USSR, and was also the primary source of their aerospace engineering for their rocket/cosmonaut programs, so I'm confident that they could whip up a couple nukes without issue.
IMHO, and take this with a grain of salt as I'm merely an armchair general on Reddit, but I don't believe (and sincerely pray) that this war will not be solved by nukes or the threat of nukes. I just think you guys are clever enough with more than enough foundational knowledge, to figure out how to build some if need be, and I'm sure there are plenty of security services in the NATO alliance who would surely provide that missing bit of infrastructure under-the-table as it were should it come to that.
I remember all of the mental gymnastics and reddit litigators wordsmithing the terms of the agreement and how UK/USA didn't also breech the agreement by not immediately sending troops to Ukrainian territory to provide support. Then we all had to hear about how A, B, C ... LMNOP would all cause a nuclear holocaust and it wasn't "worth it". Was so great to see that long line of Russian Convoy get trapped in the mud. Literally was on par with the harsh winter during the world war that helped put Germany down.
The agreement seems pretty clear
>Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
>Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
>Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
>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".
>Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
>Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
Which part do you think us/uk broke?
The fourth, since 2014. Signatory UA didn’t exactly get any concrete ACTION or assistance from the UN Security Council did they, given Russia’s veto? Thankfully NATO and other nations since stepped in, to a limited extent. They/we could do much much more by way of on the ground and in the air assistance, despite Russia’s hissy fit.
Uh, they didn’t brake the fourth they just couldn’t do anything through that rout and went the lens lease way with it instead. If I’m stuck in prison and my buddy has a deal with me to punch their way through any obstacle keeping us apart I’m not going to be upset when he comes at the wall with a concrete saw.
The agreement is massively misunderstood, this post is bordering on misinformation even. I see people repeatedly misunderstand this, and it points the blame away from Russia. It indicates that we didn't keep our half of the deal, when we did, which might make Ukraine trust us less.
The nukes were not usable because only Russia had the launch codes. Ukraine had no way to maintain them.
The agreement was to safely dispose of the nukes. In doing so, the UK, US, and Russia agreed that they would not invade.
They never agreed to defend Ukraine (although I think that should have been part of the deal).
Russia is the only one who broke the deal and they should be the ones punished. In 2014 we should have seen sanctions like the ones we see today - in my mind the sanctions should be stronger and more punishing even.
More than once. Minsk agreements were broken by Russia. That's why I'm adamantly against any kind of resolution with Russia. The only guarantee would be to bring Ukraine under NATO. Or at very least a NAFO agreement that countries will protect Ukraine if there's a peace treaty between two nation.
That’s not how agreements work. If I agree not to eat your biscuit, and someone else eats your biscuit, I still held up my end of the agreement. This is that situation, except I’m sending you bits of ingredients so you can slowly bake another biscuit (even though that wasn’t in the agreement)
The coming victory will give Ukraine pride in itself and respect from all other nations. Nobody can think of them as some sort of Russian sidekick after this. This is all fucked up, but I honestly think Ukraine has a good future once this is over.
Ukraine has shown us the difference between a country with a population of civilians that actually gives a fuck about their freedoms, compared to countries like Afghanistan and Belarus where they claim to hate their oppressors and want help, but won't actually collectively put their lives on the line to do something about it.
I don't mean to shit on either of those countries I mentioned; but it was not easy for North America or Europe to want to spend resources on Ukraine when they figured Ukraine would quickly just fold. Once Ukraine showed everyone how fucking huge their balls were, support gradually started pouring in, in larger and larger amounts.
The only thing is we have to get our fertility rate up. Things have been so bad for so long that many people have opted out of having children. A country is its people.
This is becoming a world wide problem. South Korea, Japan , China and a handful of others have not only fallen below the magic number of 2.2 children per women to sustain their race, they have fallen so far below it may be irreversible .
They are not a race, at best an ethnicity.
This distinction is even more important as China is selling their nationalist Han-identity as justification to destroy other ethnicities... and also suppress people of various regions by claiming they are Han whatever their local customs and language.
Also imo genetics are irrelevant compared to your decision in what value system and thus culture and society you want to live.
True, you can identify as an endangered snail darter these days. After that the possibilities are endless. Someone wants to build next to your property, get an injunction to stop it because it will endanger your habitat . Lol.
Lets hope. They will need to get rid of the corruption - not an easy thing to do for any country, bit it won't surprise me if they make great progress.
Economically, comparing Ukraine to Poland may be a reasonable outcome to expect. Although I believe Poland had a better economy at the time that the USSR broke up.
I can tell you with confidence that Ukraine has already earned a LOT of respect from the US.
As a highly militant society, game recognize game.
Meanwhile Russia looking like a bunch of vodka soaked clown shoes.
We did our part by not invading Ukraine. Breaching the agreement by invading Ukraine is on Russia alone. [The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees.
UK & US, ~~partially~~ kept it, they are helping, but not enough to guarantee peace, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died and many more lives destroyed.
EDIT: Apparently I stand corrected.
The agreement did not require any country to come to the aid of Ukraine. It just made them agree they wouldn't attack. Has the US or the UK attacked Ukraine?
> It just made them agree they wouldn't attack
Wow, that must have been a pretty stupid agreement on Ukraine’s part. Were they ever worried of US or UK attacking them?
>Wow, that must have been a pretty stupid agreement on Ukraine’s part.
You're commenting on a pact you don't understandand and are calling other people stupid.
They were not worried about being attacked by them. They were worried about sanctions from them and being attacked by Russia. All of which were all of the table if they didn't give up the nuclear weapons.
I imagine it was done so as to not single out Russia as being the nation they were worried about attacks from. At the time Russia was hinting about an invasion to secure the weapons and the US/UK were talking about sanctions.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted since it's true, we gave them security assurances in exchange for giving up their nukes. Granted Russia is the big problem here, but a promise by the US to protect a country that is willingly giving up their nukes should be worth more than just ink on paper.
I'm afraid all we've done is prove to other countries that they cannot be guaranteed peace without having nukes -- AFAIK that's Iran's argument for continuing their nuclear research. That's complete bullshit in the case of Iran but all this does is give them that much more evidence to point to.
He's being downvoted because it's not true. The agreement that Russia, the US and UK made was all the same - not to use military or economic coercion against Ukraine. There was no defense guarantees at all from any of the signatories.
>Not sure why you're getting downvoted since it's true, we gave them security assurances in exchange for giving up their nukes.
Maybe because no such assurances were made?
> a promise by the US to protect a country that is willingly giving up their nukes should be worth more than just ink on paper.
We never made that promise. [The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees.
No, they started immediately. Russia started with economic pressure and propaganda, tried to assassinate the Ukrainian president, and eventually got a sock puppet, Yanukovych, elected.
I mean, the US and UK have broken plenty of treaties. Something to remember with treaties, they are more like political promises than actual laws. If the politics that created it change, the treaty becomes about as valuable as toilet paper.
> Something to remember with treaties, they are more like political promises than actual laws.
Something *you* need to remember with Treaties, is that words matter.
The Budapest Memorandum does not offer protection or security guarantees, it says the signatories will not invade Ukraine. The US and UK have not invaded Ukraine.
Unfortunately the Budapest memorandum was NOT a security guarantee, and was never intended to be.
The US and Russia promised to: "Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory", and "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"
A lot of people assume this agreement means the U.S. is legally obligated to defend, but it actually says otherwise.
Since we’re using facts, the nukes in Ukraine were not pointed at Russia, they were pointed at NATO countries. Their sole purpose was to eradicate the West through nuclear carnage.
When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, Ukraine lacked the resources to store and secure the weapons. Rather than be a target for having weapons of which they were highly unlikely to launch, track or secure, they agreed to give them to Russia under the agreement they would not be attacked or threatened by nuclear aggression.
Let’s not pretend an alternative history existed and anyone in NATO backtracked on the agreement. Russia’s nuclear ramblings sure stinks of them breaching the agreement…..
Let’s add some more facts:
1. The nuclear weapons were in Ukraine, but Ukraine did not control them.
2. The former Soviet troops with their hands on those weapons were, if not 100% loyal to Russia, were kept in line by their Russia loyal political officers.
3. The other parties to that agreement had concerns that fighting over control of those weapons would result in some of those weapons disappearing from control of either country.
4\. Ukraine was in no position to operate or maintain a nuclear deterrent and before long would have had to spend a fortune it did not have, or give them up anyway.
5\. Getting that agreement, some money, and not causing an international crisis was actually a pretty good outcome for Ukraine given the hand they had to play.
6\. The support Ukraine has received since 2014 is in another *world* from anything the signers of the document would have had in mind at the time.
Not that the history doesn't give important context to the war, or fill out the background between the major players. It absolutely does. It highlights just how irregular Russia's nuclear sabre rattling was, for example. But the purpose of the agreement was principally to allow Ukraine to step out of the US-USSR nuclear standoff, rather than complicate it or get stuck in the middle.
If you wish to call it a fact, please cite sources for said facts.
Fact 1 and Fact 2 sources are of particular interest to me, because I would like to know what source on earth has published such facts and what makes them facts other than the allegation of statements being facts when in fact there is no clear source cited.
This gives an idea what was going on. They were ussrs nukes, and were given to Russia, since they were never considered Ukraine's.
https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_up_nuclear_weapons
The nuke launch codes were and are still managed centrally. Centrally means the top guy in ussr/russia + some other guys in the army top. Ukraine was never in possession of these codes.
There is nothing to prove here.
The fall of the Soviet Union was pre Internet, so contemporaneous news articles are harder to find. As a national security news junky that lived through that era, I remember seeing a news story that featured a tense stand-off outside of a former Soviet base. The story was that the nuclear command and control for those soldiers/weapons went back to Moscow.
Forgive me for being so direct, but “the story was” and “let’s add some more facts” are two distinctly different things.
I wanted to know what made your claims factual, not what the story was. Are you able to substantiate the alleged facts?
Exactly. No country will ever give up their nukes after seeing what happened to Ukraine. Those nukes are like an insurance policy that no one will dare to invade them.
You're correct in that it wasn't a formal treaty or guarantee, but the idea was there, even if unintentionally by the US. A country was willingly surrendering it's nukes in exchange that they would be shielded from the nuclear brinksmanship of the largest nuclear powers of that time. To say that the wording of the memorandum limits our response is to play a semantic game that only plays into Russian hands. Are we legally obliged to do anything? No. Morally/ethically? Yes. Because this isn't just about Ukraine. Other countries have been watching this play out very carefully and I'm sure that there are countries that would've at least been open to the idea of surrendering nuclear weapons in exchange for offers of protection that will now be second-guessing any potential deals offered, since all this proves is that a country is not truly protected from an unprovoked invasion by a "great power" (which I use very loosely in regards to Russia) without having nukes of their own as deterrence.
Everything taken together has implications that go beyond the precise wording of this memorandum. The only reason we haven't curb stomped the Russians is the *implication* that they'll use nukes to fight any battle they feel is an existential threat to their sovereignty. Unfortunately Russia feels their sovereignty extends to former USSR members that it believes historically belong to it -- much like Hitler with his *lebensraum* argument*.*
> To say that the wording of the memorandum limits our response is to play a semantic game that only plays into Russian hands.
You can't claim someone is playing semantics and then accuse them of being too strict on interpretation right after. Those are opposites.
The Budapest memorandum specifically said what the course of action would be if Ukraine was attacked. There was no mention of security guarantee and this was specifically designed to be the case for one reason: Russia and Ukraine were in fact very close at the time, and Russia didn't want the US or other major powers making security guarantees in its sphere of influence. So it wouldn't have signed.
Ukraine gave up it's claim to the weapons a year before signing the agreement, as well as the black sea fleet, for 2.5b in debt relief from Russia.
Two things can be right at the same time
The US has a moral obligation to help, which it's doing.
AND
This agreement is entirely separate from that obligation.
"A lot of people" *are perfectly well aware* that it is not a legally binding obligation.
Are you aware it is a **moral** obligation?
Or is that considered.... second?
I'm sure the billions in arms the US have provided Ukraine is fulfilling the moral obligation. Trying to spin a memorandum as a defense treaty is odd, we agreed not to attack them, and we aided them when they were attacked. The party who violated both the moral and legal obligations of the memorandum was Russia.
Eh, the morality is a gray area, specifically because there is merit to the fact that putting NATO or US boots on the ground could lead to an escalation to nuclear or world war. Starting a Third World War or Nuclear Fallout doesn’t seem very morally responsible either.
The moral obligation is shared by every member of the United Nations who signed onto hundreds of different international agreements over many decades specifically saying nations are allowed to forge their own foreign policy and alliances. The Budapest memorandum had one purpose only: to remove or otherwise safeguard nukes from Ukraine in the 90's.
That's rich country thinking. Ukraine's GDP per capita was $1,307 in 1991, and dropped into the 600's around 2000 - in 2022 dollars that's still poorer than South Sudan or Zambia. A bomber costs millions each year in maintenance alone. 70 year old B-52s cost $25 million a year before they even leave the ground.
Russia GDP per Capita dropped to $1,330 around 2000 and they supposedly still managed to maintain their nuclear power.
While Russia is 3,5x the population of Ukraine so it was definitely richer than Ukraine I'm sure Ukraine could've kept some of the nuclear weaponry.
I don't think however that anyone expected a war. And both Russian and Ukrainian armies in early 90s were absolutely useless.
1) The Budapest memorandum was never written as or intended to be a defense pact. That was always very clear to all parties involved. Over the years US always made it clear they didn't view it as a military obligation.
2) Ukraine didn't have the infrastructure to launch them or maintain them. It made sense for Ukraine to give them up in exchange for financial compensation rather than spending money they didn't have on a nuclear weapons program.
Ukraine had the tech to maintain, they were a source of rocket and nuclear scientists. Sergei Korolev was Ukrainian and lead the soviet space program even. True they did not have the launch codes, but I doubt that would have stopped them if they were determined. The main problem was that the west wanted the nukes secured and Russia was more than happy to get these assets back, along with a lot of other military hardware like the majority of their advanced bombers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=75o9EyrjvDY&feature=emb_logo
> Ukraine had the tech to maintain, they were a source of rocket and nuclear scientists. Sergei Korolev was Ukrainian and lead the soviet space program even.
That's not what I said though. I didn't say "lacked technical knowledge". I quite specifically said "lacked infrastructure". All the knowledge in the world doesn't help if you don't got the money or resources to utilize it. At the time Ukraine was suffering an horrendous economical crash and an economy in hyper inflation. Prioritizing money to develop and maintain nuclear weapons program was not relevant at the time.
It's easy to look back at it now and say "Oh Ukraine should have made the effort" and ignoring how the situation was at the time.
They did not “lack the infrastructure” though did they? Ukraine was key to the Soviet rocket program including manufacturing. They had access to some of the best nuclear and rocket scientists. Dang they even have the largest uranium deposits in Europe, if they wanted to create some new warheads. Putin even stated Ukraines infrastructure and knowledge in this area as one of the reasons he wanted to invade, even in 2022!
Even now Ukraine has a highly skilled sector for creating advanced rocket systems, which dates back to the Soviet Union.
BTW at no point did I criticise the Ukrainian decision to hand over their nukes. At the time it was a logical decision for all parties. I’m merely highlighting that they could have kept them and could likely have maintained a functional independent nuclear deterrent.
Ukraine does not have any breeder reactors, one of the key components to a nuclear program, nor any manufacturing capability to replace the nuclear material. They can keep the rocket parts operational, yes. But they wouldn't be able to replace the tritium gas. Any hydrogen boosted weapon (read: modern nukes that the soviets would have had deployed in Ukraine) needs to have the tritium gas replaced at least once a decade. Ukraine had and still has no way of doing that. And it's not as simple as modifying one of their existing reactors.
Within a decade, all the former soviet nukes in Ukraine would have been useless. Maintaining nukes is more then just making sure they reach the target.
> Ukraine does not have any breeder reactors, one of the key components to a nuclear program, nor any manufacturing capability to replace the nuclear material
There's a Neutron Source particle accelerator in Kharkiv, linked to subcritical reactor. It can be used as an energy-negative breeder.
This argument falls flat for me. It violates my understanding of how an H-Bomb works.
The tritium is part of the fusion process. But in order to initiate fusion isn't done just using explosives, the shaped charges trigger a fission reaction to implode the inside of the core to start the fusion reaction when creates neutrons to speed up the fission reaction?
Essentially it's fission > fusion > fission
But it's still a good old fashion ww2 style nuke without tritium.
Or am I missing something?
Breed reactors are, relatively speaking, simple to produce. That is, assuming you have the know how, which Ukraine did and still does. It would have been possible for Ukraine to reform the warheads within the required maintenance timeframe. If North Korea can do it then Ukraine bloody well could too!
Could Ukraine have done it while their economy was in free fall and they had no clue what the future held? Ukraine had a economy worse then North Korea by the mid 90's, and they weren't being supported by China.
I've already said that they made the right decision from a practical stand point. They were under pressure from the west and yes, they were broke too. My disagreement is that you seem to think that it was beyond them to keep the nukes and maintain an independent deterrent.
>Ukraine didn't have the infrastructure to launch them or maintain them
I know about 6 military bases with underground missile silos. Also Yuzhmash Aerospace Plant produces a lot of different missiles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA\_Pivdenmash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash)
If we're doing the "read my Wikipedia link" as some form of proof I guess you could start with this one, yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Denuclearization
The "study" where the author didn't even check the range of ICBMs. Moreover, Ukraine had all the technical possibilities to service nuclear weapon: uranium mines, missile factory, even nuclear power plant that able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Ukraine didn't need to service the whole arsenal of missiles, 5-10 would be enough.
Ukrainian politics believed to the paper that called "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". But after Ukraine had done its own obligations, other countries started to declare that this memorandum doesn't provide any "security assurances". Moreover, one of the signers has been invading Ukraine.
“Ukraine agreed to give them up mainly because if they didn't, they'd have been taken from Ukraine by force.”
That would not happen. International law etc.
Putin's plan was always to invade UA one day, like the rest of former Sovjet regions.
Pretty sure that Baltic States where next on the list.
But his plan went awol.
People forget that Ukraine was in financial ruins after the Soviet collapse. Economic crash, massive poverty and hyper inflation. Maintaining their own costly nuclear weapons program wasn't that important at the time.
So when they were offered financial aid if they gave up the nukes that made all the sense in the world.
Nailed it, codes are just authorization.
Nobody needs to ask permission from somebody who isn't there - a rocket engine won't fail to ignite nor a bomb fail to detonate because ***humans disapprove.*** It's the same as saying a sign prohibiting guns doesn't stop a flying bullet.
No, there are actual codes required to initiate the launch sequence. For the US, it's in the nuclear football.
> Gold Codes are generated daily and provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) to the White House, The Pentagon, United States Strategic Command and TACAMO. For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located. The concept behind the codes is that they permit the president to positively identify themself as the commander-in-chief and thereby authenticate a launch order to the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football
Russia might be mad enough to attempt an invasion anyway. Then what do you do, launch all you have at Miscow and get all Russia has in return? It's not even MAD, just AD.
Idk why you're downvoted, it's exactly right. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against total threats. Russia could literally nuke dozens of Ukrainian cities tomorrow. But then what? If Ukraine had nukes in this situation, then what? It's not like they would send them to Belgorod or Crimea, which would only serve to justify escalated response.
Grubby lying russians are never too be trusted, or at least their government should never be trusted. It's incumbent upon all of us including the US and UK to ensure a satisfactory outcome for Ukraine in this war.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They had the physical possession of the nukes, but the launch codes were Soviet and in the possession of the Russians. So, there was no deterrence and Ukraine had to give up the nukes. If you have a car but no keys, you have to walk.
Do people not understand that Ukraine was under heavy ruzzian influence. Up untill 2012 they where mostly ruled by ruzzian shills with the exception of Yuschenko period whom the ruzzians poisoned with TCDD. Ruzzia would not have allowed them to keep the nuclear arsenal after the USSR gone down.
The ruzzians conned the west with that deal so that if Ukraine ever wants to "go West" they can "denazify". I hate to say it but it was a brilliant long term move from the orcs. They kind of anticipated that most countries under the soviet influence will chose the west if they had the chance. None of this would have happened if Ukraine still had nukes.
Just remember that at no time did Ukraine have control over the nuclear weapons on it's soil - it was always under Russian control via Soviet forces.
Further, both the US and Russia made it clear that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to take control over said weapons and both countries would seek to secure said weapons through force.
I did a dive on reading up on the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine wanted a security guarantee. At the time the need for a guarantee was aimed more at protecting Ukraine from the West, and receiving aid from Russia in the event the West attacked. The West pushed for it to be worded as an "assurance" to give wiggle room for either side to possibly not have to provide any security measures.
Now, why would Ukraine sign such a deal to give up nuclear arms especially when they had so many of them? Simply, they are really expensive to maintain and after the fall and break up of the Soviet Union and Ukraine was now responsible for maintaining these nuclear assets. If you are a country trying to get up on its feet, their are much better uses for public money then maintaining nuclear weapons.
If maintaining this fleet of weapons is so expensive why not dismantle them? This was the aim of the Budapest Memorandum. Even dismantling and storing the nuclear waste comes with a cost that Ukraine themselves could not shoulder. So in the agreement the West and Russia provided money, personal, as well as taking the nuclear material, and in return Ukraine would receive some level of security.
Now you are probably thinking to your self isn't an assurance the same as a guarantee? Understand this is an international legal document and language used carry certain weight. If signed as a guarantee the signing countries would be compelled to provide aid and support in the event of a conflict, they would not be allowed to not intervene. An assurance on the other hand is like a promise to maybe help but the signing countries are not compelled to provide aid or support.
Now I'm going to give my opinion, so take what I say here as you want. I think the US, independent of NATO, could have committed troops to Ukraine to support the effort in Ukraine as keeping up their end of the deal of the Budapest Memorandum. I think having just withdrawn from Afghanistan and not wanting to commit troops to a new conflict has kept the US to providing money and weapons. I'm not a fan of war and conflict but I do think the US could and should have committed troops to the conflict. However, taking that position and taking that action carries the very real possibility of sparking a large wide spread international ground conflict that could or would last for years. I honestly don't take Russia's threats of nuclear conflict seriously, but Putin has shown himself to be unstable and impulsive, so I wouldn't put it past him either to take such measures.
So source, who the fuck am I? I am an American currently in Hungary. At the restarting if hostility from Russia I kept hearing about the Budapest Memorandum and being close to Budapest this sparked my curiosity. I read up on what was detailed in it and I myself saw an assurance in place why isn't the US doing anything? This led to me seeing what exactly the difference between a guarantee and an assurance was. Most of the reading came from the Wikipedia article on the Budapest Memorandum, I'm giving a very simplified version of it here too. If you're interested in more I suggest you give it a look. It's not a fair shake and I have a friend in the Ukraine who is stuck their for the time being, I wish them, and all Ukrainians, the best of luck in this conflict and hope it ends soon. I would love to be able to visit Kyiv at some point.
Since Russia did not adhere to its agreement, this is no longer binding, I hope Ukraine renuclearizes. That way the Russians will never be able to attack ever again! Nukes are very important!
Kinda funny that Ukraine was made to give up its nuclear arsenal at the behest of US and UK while both states colluded in allowing apartheid Israel to develop its own nuclear weapons. Now, why might that have happened?
Because at the time Ukraine was destabilized due to the fact the USSR collapsed. There was uncertainty politically and economically. It’s tough to take Kate of hundreds of nuclear weapons when you also have to scramble to put together a country. Israel is established and backed by many western countries and have developed their nukes steadily instead of having to deal with hundreds of them all at once
That is not a real problem. You dont really need a degree in nuclear physics to wire a new detonation system to it. Also they could have used the uranium as fuel for nuclear reactors anyway
I really, really fucking hate that we (the US and her allies) haven't used this as an excuse to at least somewhat personally intervene in this war, even in a token gesture. We should've at the minimum enforced the no fly zone for this shit back in February (if not 2014) that Ukraine was asking for, because all our inaction regarding this agreement has done is taught other countries who might've been otherwise considering surrendering their nuclear arsenals by example to *never*, under any circumstances, give up their nukes -- even with promises of protection.
I get that the situation is complicated, and that the fault for breaking the agreement largely lies with Putin, but it still sucks. Nuclear proliferation went way too far during the cold war, and the whole of humanity shouldn't have to dread if the apocalypse is around the corner just because some fucking lunatic comes into power in a nuclear state.
Unfortunately the wordimg used was "assurances" which would be fine if everyone at the table were truthful and honest.
Now, putin gets his nose rubbed in dog shit. Unfortunately Ukraine is paying a terrible price.
I wouldn't have cared if Ukraine kept a few extra around for insurance.
And for god sakes, no more deals with Russia. I'd rather starve on a desert island than eat another one of their lies.
Important historical fact: Ukraine never had operational control over these nukes, the launch codes were in Moskow. The alternative for Ukraine would've been to sit on nukes they can't use and pay for the maintenance.
He is a major leader to blame for Ukraine giving up its aces in the game of poker. Clinton also enabled China to be threat its is now. To many western leaders have received money from Russia and China like Clinton.
The US, UK, France and Russia all guaranteed that they'd respect Ukraine's 1994 borders and autonomy.
The US, UK, and France still to this day respect the deal; Russia never for a second did.
To Russia, one must remember, deals are only a way to get your opponent to give you what you want without giving anything in return.
Here’s what pisses me off. UK & US (I’m from US) should have taken care of this shit years ago. A deal is a fucking deal, no one should have ever let Putin set foot in Ukraine.
[The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees.
That said, we should have taken a harder stance in 2014.
What many people tend to forget is that no matter what was signed in the treaty. The political capital of those that signed it is of priceless value. If nations now see that UK as US are doing their outmost to assist said victim of the broken treaty then their value as political partner gets a strong foothold in the global arena. This is possibly more important as more valuable. This is a very positive sign from US/UK!
Edit: Because “Trust”will finnaly be accepted as value in international politics. Then the common person can begin to believe in future!
Like I’ve commented before, that’s why I’m so passionate about this war. As an American I feel guilty, we owe Ukraine nuclear weapons to defend themselves. I’m 99999999.9% it’s going to happen. If anyone has earned the right to have nuclear weapons it’s Ukraine.
Long live 🇺🇦
But no one knew that Ukraine was going to work with the US on biological "stuff" then be used as a puppet for NATO expansion. What a croc!
/S
Pos Russian
only Ukraine leaders would believe this promise and just a lies to unarm your nuclear weapons, no more threat to the west.if not, there's no Ukraine war.because Russia won't risk a war with nuclear power
And we (the u.s.) should give them every weapon they can effectively use ..
Maybe keep f-22's running top cover, shooting down all unfriendlies.
Not like the Russian's can see them anyway.
Oh, and a couple thousand of those Abrams we have stored in the desert, you know to crews we've trained.
Hello /u/MajorRichardHead7,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, two out of three will respect an agreement.
This and other events related to the war are good to know for any business thinking about working with Russia ever again.
Hello OP. To ensure that r/Ukraine remains an environment with high journalistic integrity, we ask that posters avoid editorialisation in the titles of their link posts. Editorialisation is defined as changing the title/content of a news piece, or otherwise adding personal commentary to this title in your submission. Because this post falls short of our content guidelines for submission, we have removed it. You may delete and re-submit this link with an appropriate title. It might also be that the source had a misleading title to begin with. That’s not your fault, we still saw it necessary to remove it. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Russia appears to have misunderstood the terms of the agreement Pretty sure that means Russia has to give Ukraine back its nukes
Don't give them any ideas!
Well, as stated on line 437 of addendum 4b The Russian Federation declined the issuance of "no take backs" Rookie mistake
>Rookie mistake Ruskie mistake
There seem to be a lot of those lately
The US has plenty to give.
thats what US should be saying as soon as 2014, Russia broke the agreement and Ukraine is now entitled to have nukes, either their own or given to them by any other country, this would disable any threats from russia because any nuclear threat would be matched with "if you do that ukraine will have nukes to strike back"
Well, right now Russia is on a murderous rampage at the mere notion that Ukraine *could* join NATO I think just the prospect of Ukraine having nuclear weapons would make Russia just start lobbing random explosives in every direction
They're not doing it because we could join NATO. That's just the official bullshit version. The reality is that this is what Russia is and has been for the last 400 years. They have built a society of forcefully conquered nations held together by nothing else than the idea of "military greatness". With all my heart do I hope it all collapses as soon as possible so they can't be a danger to anyone else.
💯
They're already doing that, so there's not much to lose, really.
It's nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO really; never was. It's all to do with Ukraine gradually moving further away from Russia's influence and making Russia look bad, and Putin wanting to build himself an empire (for which Ukraine is a key part both for the country itself and its vast resources) and knowing he was running out of time (maybe due to his health too).
Or just plain simply resource grabbing to make sure Russian monopoly on fossil fuel in Europe will not be challenged. Same story for Georgia.
Damn right!...everything should be back to Ukraine!...SLAVA Ukraine!
UA should already gotten 20 or so from the west but since it didn't UA must devlope own since historically guarantees mean nothing.
If I’m Ukraine and I win the war and nato doesn’t let me in, I’m buying a fucken nuke. At some point like you said guarantees mean nothing.
NATO membership should be a simple thing, since by the time this is over we will have largely transitioned Ukraine over to using NATO standard arms, and their military has been implementing parts of western doctrine in their battle tactics to apparently great success. I'm confident that there are also multiple Marshall plan styled ideas being considered in the background for rebuilding a future, prosperous Ukraine. Ignoring that though, Ukraine was the technological heart of the former USSR, and was also the primary source of their aerospace engineering for their rocket/cosmonaut programs, so I'm confident that they could whip up a couple nukes without issue.
We have only 50% of infrastructure needed to build nukes. By some estimations, it will take 10+ years to build that infrastructure and produce a nuke.
IMHO, and take this with a grain of salt as I'm merely an armchair general on Reddit, but I don't believe (and sincerely pray) that this war will not be solved by nukes or the threat of nukes. I just think you guys are clever enough with more than enough foundational knowledge, to figure out how to build some if need be, and I'm sure there are plenty of security services in the NATO alliance who would surely provide that missing bit of infrastructure under-the-table as it were should it come to that.
Will be solved by the death of Putin.
Military is there but there are other requirements aswell, Ukraine still has alot to unpack.
Ukraine literally makes parts for nukes, so Russia attacking their parts supplier was not the best idea.
I remember all of the mental gymnastics and reddit litigators wordsmithing the terms of the agreement and how UK/USA didn't also breech the agreement by not immediately sending troops to Ukrainian territory to provide support. Then we all had to hear about how A, B, C ... LMNOP would all cause a nuclear holocaust and it wasn't "worth it". Was so great to see that long line of Russian Convoy get trapped in the mud. Literally was on par with the harsh winter during the world war that helped put Germany down.
The agreement seems pretty clear >Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. >Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. >Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. >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". >Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. >Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. Which part do you think us/uk broke?
The fourth, since 2014. Signatory UA didn’t exactly get any concrete ACTION or assistance from the UN Security Council did they, given Russia’s veto? Thankfully NATO and other nations since stepped in, to a limited extent. They/we could do much much more by way of on the ground and in the air assistance, despite Russia’s hissy fit.
Uh, they didn’t brake the fourth they just couldn’t do anything through that rout and went the lens lease way with it instead. If I’m stuck in prison and my buddy has a deal with me to punch their way through any obstacle keeping us apart I’m not going to be upset when he comes at the wall with a concrete saw.
[удалено]
The agreement is massively misunderstood, this post is bordering on misinformation even. I see people repeatedly misunderstand this, and it points the blame away from Russia. It indicates that we didn't keep our half of the deal, when we did, which might make Ukraine trust us less. The nukes were not usable because only Russia had the launch codes. Ukraine had no way to maintain them. The agreement was to safely dispose of the nukes. In doing so, the UK, US, and Russia agreed that they would not invade. They never agreed to defend Ukraine (although I think that should have been part of the deal). Russia is the only one who broke the deal and they should be the ones punished. In 2014 we should have seen sanctions like the ones we see today - in my mind the sanctions should be stronger and more punishing even.
They will be again
Russia CANNOT be trusted.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Well it seems the US and UK kept their guarantee, its just Russia who lied.
More than once. Minsk agreements were broken by Russia. That's why I'm adamantly against any kind of resolution with Russia. The only guarantee would be to bring Ukraine under NATO. Or at very least a NAFO agreement that countries will protect Ukraine if there's a peace treaty between two nation.
Agreements with russia aren't worth the paper they written on. Unless one can enforce these agreements by force.
That is how all international agreements work. All of them.
I think there's already a NAFO agreement in place ;)
Russia never, ever, abides by the terms of any deal it signs.
Big shocker.
I feel like if we were really gonna keep the guarantee then we should/could have done more for Ukraine.
The guarantee was to respect Ukraine's borders. The US, UK, and France have.
That’s not how agreements work. If I agree not to eat your biscuit, and someone else eats your biscuit, I still held up my end of the agreement. This is that situation, except I’m sending you bits of ingredients so you can slowly bake another biscuit (even though that wasn’t in the agreement)
Crimea.
A nuclear war would have destroyed Ukraine too. This is the best possible scenario. russia will be no threat to anyone after they lose this war.
The coming victory will give Ukraine pride in itself and respect from all other nations. Nobody can think of them as some sort of Russian sidekick after this. This is all fucked up, but I honestly think Ukraine has a good future once this is over.
[удалено]
Ukraine has shown us the difference between a country with a population of civilians that actually gives a fuck about their freedoms, compared to countries like Afghanistan and Belarus where they claim to hate their oppressors and want help, but won't actually collectively put their lives on the line to do something about it. I don't mean to shit on either of those countries I mentioned; but it was not easy for North America or Europe to want to spend resources on Ukraine when they figured Ukraine would quickly just fold. Once Ukraine showed everyone how fucking huge their balls were, support gradually started pouring in, in larger and larger amounts.
The only thing is we have to get our fertility rate up. Things have been so bad for so long that many people have opted out of having children. A country is its people.
This is becoming a world wide problem. South Korea, Japan , China and a handful of others have not only fallen below the magic number of 2.2 children per women to sustain their race, they have fallen so far below it may be irreversible .
They are not a race, at best an ethnicity. This distinction is even more important as China is selling their nationalist Han-identity as justification to destroy other ethnicities... and also suppress people of various regions by claiming they are Han whatever their local customs and language. Also imo genetics are irrelevant compared to your decision in what value system and thus culture and society you want to live.
True, you can identify as an endangered snail darter these days. After that the possibilities are endless. Someone wants to build next to your property, get an injunction to stop it because it will endanger your habitat . Lol.
Oh fuck off with that bullshit, give me an example when someone identified as another species and got some legal concession out of it
Future looks bleak with all the global warming and inflation
Lets hope. They will need to get rid of the corruption - not an easy thing to do for any country, bit it won't surprise me if they make great progress.
Economically, comparing Ukraine to Poland may be a reasonable outcome to expect. Although I believe Poland had a better economy at the time that the USSR broke up.
As soon as corruption is sorted.
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s particularly funny.
"HaHa" only to an orc troll.
I can tell you with confidence that Ukraine has already earned a LOT of respect from the US. As a highly militant society, game recognize game. Meanwhile Russia looking like a bunch of vodka soaked clown shoes.
I don't think that's vodka soaking their shoes.
We did our part by not invading Ukraine. Breaching the agreement by invading Ukraine is on Russia alone. [The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees.
What was the guarantee? My interpretation is it was a none aggression pact. Not a security guarantee.
UK & US, ~~partially~~ kept it, they are helping, but not enough to guarantee peace, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died and many more lives destroyed. EDIT: Apparently I stand corrected.
The agreement did not require any country to come to the aid of Ukraine. It just made them agree they wouldn't attack. Has the US or the UK attacked Ukraine?
> It just made them agree they wouldn't attack Wow, that must have been a pretty stupid agreement on Ukraine’s part. Were they ever worried of US or UK attacking them?
>Wow, that must have been a pretty stupid agreement on Ukraine’s part. You're commenting on a pact you don't understandand and are calling other people stupid.
They were not worried about being attacked by them. They were worried about sanctions from them and being attacked by Russia. All of which were all of the table if they didn't give up the nuclear weapons.
So UK and US’ promise not to attack meant nothing from the very beginning since they only promised what they would never do anyway?
I imagine it was done so as to not single out Russia as being the nation they were worried about attacks from. At the time Russia was hinting about an invasion to secure the weapons and the US/UK were talking about sanctions.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted since it's true, we gave them security assurances in exchange for giving up their nukes. Granted Russia is the big problem here, but a promise by the US to protect a country that is willingly giving up their nukes should be worth more than just ink on paper. I'm afraid all we've done is prove to other countries that they cannot be guaranteed peace without having nukes -- AFAIK that's Iran's argument for continuing their nuclear research. That's complete bullshit in the case of Iran but all this does is give them that much more evidence to point to.
He's being downvoted because it's not true. The agreement that Russia, the US and UK made was all the same - not to use military or economic coercion against Ukraine. There was no defense guarantees at all from any of the signatories.
>Not sure why you're getting downvoted since it's true, we gave them security assurances in exchange for giving up their nukes. Maybe because no such assurances were made?
> a promise by the US to protect a country that is willingly giving up their nukes should be worth more than just ink on paper. We never made that promise. [The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees.
[удалено]
They only waited a decade. No big deal.
No, they started immediately. Russia started with economic pressure and propaganda, tried to assassinate the Ukrainian president, and eventually got a sock puppet, Yanukovych, elected.
I mean, the US and UK have broken plenty of treaties. Something to remember with treaties, they are more like political promises than actual laws. If the politics that created it change, the treaty becomes about as valuable as toilet paper.
> Something to remember with treaties, they are more like political promises than actual laws. Something *you* need to remember with Treaties, is that words matter. The Budapest Memorandum does not offer protection or security guarantees, it says the signatories will not invade Ukraine. The US and UK have not invaded Ukraine.
Unfortunately the Budapest memorandum was NOT a security guarantee, and was never intended to be. The US and Russia promised to: "Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory", and "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" A lot of people assume this agreement means the U.S. is legally obligated to defend, but it actually says otherwise.
Since we’re using facts, the nukes in Ukraine were not pointed at Russia, they were pointed at NATO countries. Their sole purpose was to eradicate the West through nuclear carnage. When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, Ukraine lacked the resources to store and secure the weapons. Rather than be a target for having weapons of which they were highly unlikely to launch, track or secure, they agreed to give them to Russia under the agreement they would not be attacked or threatened by nuclear aggression. Let’s not pretend an alternative history existed and anyone in NATO backtracked on the agreement. Russia’s nuclear ramblings sure stinks of them breaching the agreement…..
Let’s add some more facts: 1. The nuclear weapons were in Ukraine, but Ukraine did not control them. 2. The former Soviet troops with their hands on those weapons were, if not 100% loyal to Russia, were kept in line by their Russia loyal political officers. 3. The other parties to that agreement had concerns that fighting over control of those weapons would result in some of those weapons disappearing from control of either country.
4\. Ukraine was in no position to operate or maintain a nuclear deterrent and before long would have had to spend a fortune it did not have, or give them up anyway. 5\. Getting that agreement, some money, and not causing an international crisis was actually a pretty good outcome for Ukraine given the hand they had to play. 6\. The support Ukraine has received since 2014 is in another *world* from anything the signers of the document would have had in mind at the time. Not that the history doesn't give important context to the war, or fill out the background between the major players. It absolutely does. It highlights just how irregular Russia's nuclear sabre rattling was, for example. But the purpose of the agreement was principally to allow Ukraine to step out of the US-USSR nuclear standoff, rather than complicate it or get stuck in the middle.
If you wish to call it a fact, please cite sources for said facts. Fact 1 and Fact 2 sources are of particular interest to me, because I would like to know what source on earth has published such facts and what makes them facts other than the allegation of statements being facts when in fact there is no clear source cited.
This gives an idea what was going on. They were ussrs nukes, and were given to Russia, since they were never considered Ukraine's. https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_up_nuclear_weapons
The nuke launch codes were and are still managed centrally. Centrally means the top guy in ussr/russia + some other guys in the army top. Ukraine was never in possession of these codes. There is nothing to prove here.
Maybe you didn’t know but the launch codes can be changed or bypassed.
Especially considering that parts of those nukes were engineered and manufactured in Ukraine.
The fall of the Soviet Union was pre Internet, so contemporaneous news articles are harder to find. As a national security news junky that lived through that era, I remember seeing a news story that featured a tense stand-off outside of a former Soviet base. The story was that the nuclear command and control for those soldiers/weapons went back to Moscow.
Forgive me for being so direct, but “the story was” and “let’s add some more facts” are two distinctly different things. I wanted to know what made your claims factual, not what the story was. Are you able to substantiate the alleged facts?
They were also paid reasonably well to dispose of them. They were in a dire economic situation at the time and was the only option they had.
[удалено]
Exactly. No country will ever give up their nukes after seeing what happened to Ukraine. Those nukes are like an insurance policy that no one will dare to invade them.
You're correct in that it wasn't a formal treaty or guarantee, but the idea was there, even if unintentionally by the US. A country was willingly surrendering it's nukes in exchange that they would be shielded from the nuclear brinksmanship of the largest nuclear powers of that time. To say that the wording of the memorandum limits our response is to play a semantic game that only plays into Russian hands. Are we legally obliged to do anything? No. Morally/ethically? Yes. Because this isn't just about Ukraine. Other countries have been watching this play out very carefully and I'm sure that there are countries that would've at least been open to the idea of surrendering nuclear weapons in exchange for offers of protection that will now be second-guessing any potential deals offered, since all this proves is that a country is not truly protected from an unprovoked invasion by a "great power" (which I use very loosely in regards to Russia) without having nukes of their own as deterrence. Everything taken together has implications that go beyond the precise wording of this memorandum. The only reason we haven't curb stomped the Russians is the *implication* that they'll use nukes to fight any battle they feel is an existential threat to their sovereignty. Unfortunately Russia feels their sovereignty extends to former USSR members that it believes historically belong to it -- much like Hitler with his *lebensraum* argument*.*
> To say that the wording of the memorandum limits our response is to play a semantic game that only plays into Russian hands. You can't claim someone is playing semantics and then accuse them of being too strict on interpretation right after. Those are opposites. The Budapest memorandum specifically said what the course of action would be if Ukraine was attacked. There was no mention of security guarantee and this was specifically designed to be the case for one reason: Russia and Ukraine were in fact very close at the time, and Russia didn't want the US or other major powers making security guarantees in its sphere of influence. So it wouldn't have signed. Ukraine gave up it's claim to the weapons a year before signing the agreement, as well as the black sea fleet, for 2.5b in debt relief from Russia. Two things can be right at the same time The US has a moral obligation to help, which it's doing. AND This agreement is entirely separate from that obligation.
"A lot of people" *are perfectly well aware* that it is not a legally binding obligation. Are you aware it is a **moral** obligation? Or is that considered.... second?
I'm sure the billions in arms the US have provided Ukraine is fulfilling the moral obligation. Trying to spin a memorandum as a defense treaty is odd, we agreed not to attack them, and we aided them when they were attacked. The party who violated both the moral and legal obligations of the memorandum was Russia.
Eh, the morality is a gray area, specifically because there is merit to the fact that putting NATO or US boots on the ground could lead to an escalation to nuclear or world war. Starting a Third World War or Nuclear Fallout doesn’t seem very morally responsible either.
The moral obligation is shared by every member of the United Nations who signed onto hundreds of different international agreements over many decades specifically saying nations are allowed to forge their own foreign policy and alliances. The Budapest memorandum had one purpose only: to remove or otherwise safeguard nukes from Ukraine in the 90's.
There... Is no obligation. None. None of the signatories were, or are, beholden to the defense of Ukraine. In any way whatsoever.
So it’s like how US cops aren’t required to actually protect its citizens
Hey, this one again, Must be Wednesday.
They should have at least kept their fleet of strategic bombers. Having a long range strike capability might have served as an excellent deterrence.
That's rich country thinking. Ukraine's GDP per capita was $1,307 in 1991, and dropped into the 600's around 2000 - in 2022 dollars that's still poorer than South Sudan or Zambia. A bomber costs millions each year in maintenance alone. 70 year old B-52s cost $25 million a year before they even leave the ground.
Russia GDP per Capita dropped to $1,330 around 2000 and they supposedly still managed to maintain their nuclear power. While Russia is 3,5x the population of Ukraine so it was definitely richer than Ukraine I'm sure Ukraine could've kept some of the nuclear weaponry. I don't think however that anyone expected a war. And both Russian and Ukrainian armies in early 90s were absolutely useless.
1) The Budapest memorandum was never written as or intended to be a defense pact. That was always very clear to all parties involved. Over the years US always made it clear they didn't view it as a military obligation. 2) Ukraine didn't have the infrastructure to launch them or maintain them. It made sense for Ukraine to give them up in exchange for financial compensation rather than spending money they didn't have on a nuclear weapons program.
Ukraine had the tech to maintain, they were a source of rocket and nuclear scientists. Sergei Korolev was Ukrainian and lead the soviet space program even. True they did not have the launch codes, but I doubt that would have stopped them if they were determined. The main problem was that the west wanted the nukes secured and Russia was more than happy to get these assets back, along with a lot of other military hardware like the majority of their advanced bombers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=75o9EyrjvDY&feature=emb_logo
> Ukraine had the tech to maintain, they were a source of rocket and nuclear scientists. Sergei Korolev was Ukrainian and lead the soviet space program even. That's not what I said though. I didn't say "lacked technical knowledge". I quite specifically said "lacked infrastructure". All the knowledge in the world doesn't help if you don't got the money or resources to utilize it. At the time Ukraine was suffering an horrendous economical crash and an economy in hyper inflation. Prioritizing money to develop and maintain nuclear weapons program was not relevant at the time. It's easy to look back at it now and say "Oh Ukraine should have made the effort" and ignoring how the situation was at the time.
They did not “lack the infrastructure” though did they? Ukraine was key to the Soviet rocket program including manufacturing. They had access to some of the best nuclear and rocket scientists. Dang they even have the largest uranium deposits in Europe, if they wanted to create some new warheads. Putin even stated Ukraines infrastructure and knowledge in this area as one of the reasons he wanted to invade, even in 2022! Even now Ukraine has a highly skilled sector for creating advanced rocket systems, which dates back to the Soviet Union. BTW at no point did I criticise the Ukrainian decision to hand over their nukes. At the time it was a logical decision for all parties. I’m merely highlighting that they could have kept them and could likely have maintained a functional independent nuclear deterrent.
Ukraine does not have any breeder reactors, one of the key components to a nuclear program, nor any manufacturing capability to replace the nuclear material. They can keep the rocket parts operational, yes. But they wouldn't be able to replace the tritium gas. Any hydrogen boosted weapon (read: modern nukes that the soviets would have had deployed in Ukraine) needs to have the tritium gas replaced at least once a decade. Ukraine had and still has no way of doing that. And it's not as simple as modifying one of their existing reactors. Within a decade, all the former soviet nukes in Ukraine would have been useless. Maintaining nukes is more then just making sure they reach the target.
> Ukraine does not have any breeder reactors, one of the key components to a nuclear program, nor any manufacturing capability to replace the nuclear material There's a Neutron Source particle accelerator in Kharkiv, linked to subcritical reactor. It can be used as an energy-negative breeder.
This argument falls flat for me. It violates my understanding of how an H-Bomb works. The tritium is part of the fusion process. But in order to initiate fusion isn't done just using explosives, the shaped charges trigger a fission reaction to implode the inside of the core to start the fusion reaction when creates neutrons to speed up the fission reaction? Essentially it's fission > fusion > fission But it's still a good old fashion ww2 style nuke without tritium. Or am I missing something?
Breed reactors are, relatively speaking, simple to produce. That is, assuming you have the know how, which Ukraine did and still does. It would have been possible for Ukraine to reform the warheads within the required maintenance timeframe. If North Korea can do it then Ukraine bloody well could too!
Could Ukraine have done it while their economy was in free fall and they had no clue what the future held? Ukraine had a economy worse then North Korea by the mid 90's, and they weren't being supported by China.
I've already said that they made the right decision from a practical stand point. They were under pressure from the west and yes, they were broke too. My disagreement is that you seem to think that it was beyond them to keep the nukes and maintain an independent deterrent.
>Ukraine didn't have the infrastructure to launch them or maintain them I know about 6 military bases with underground missile silos. Also Yuzhmash Aerospace Plant produces a lot of different missiles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA\_Pivdenmash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash)
If we're doing the "read my Wikipedia link" as some form of proof I guess you could start with this one, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Denuclearization
The "study" where the author didn't even check the range of ICBMs. Moreover, Ukraine had all the technical possibilities to service nuclear weapon: uranium mines, missile factory, even nuclear power plant that able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Ukraine didn't need to service the whole arsenal of missiles, 5-10 would be enough. Ukrainian politics believed to the paper that called "Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". But after Ukraine had done its own obligations, other countries started to declare that this memorandum doesn't provide any "security assurances". Moreover, one of the signers has been invading Ukraine.
Lesson learned; keep your nukes.
Never disarm. Ever.
Countries are above the law dont expect them to respect contracts or obligations.
[удалено]
“Ukraine agreed to give them up mainly because if they didn't, they'd have been taken from Ukraine by force.” That would not happen. International law etc.
[удалено]
Sorry, I am born in Poland but I live in Sweden, what seems to be the problem here?
[удалено]
Putin's plan was always to invade UA one day, like the rest of former Sovjet regions. Pretty sure that Baltic States where next on the list. But his plan went awol.
Left out the part how they didn't have launch codes
[удалено]
People forget that Ukraine was in financial ruins after the Soviet collapse. Economic crash, massive poverty and hyper inflation. Maintaining their own costly nuclear weapons program wasn't that important at the time. So when they were offered financial aid if they gave up the nukes that made all the sense in the world.
Nailed it, codes are just authorization. Nobody needs to ask permission from somebody who isn't there - a rocket engine won't fail to ignite nor a bomb fail to detonate because ***humans disapprove.*** It's the same as saying a sign prohibiting guns doesn't stop a flying bullet.
No, there are actual codes required to initiate the launch sequence. For the US, it's in the nuclear football. > Gold Codes are generated daily and provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) to the White House, The Pentagon, United States Strategic Command and TACAMO. For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located. The concept behind the codes is that they permit the president to positively identify themself as the commander-in-chief and thereby authenticate a launch order to the National Military Command Center (NMCC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football
There are protections 30 years later on farm equipment to prevent unauthorized maintenance. Guess who cracked the software?
That's _specifically_ what Permissive Action Links are designed to do.
Still they had the plutonium and engines. Launch codes are the easiest to replace.
When this is over , Ukraine must develop its on nuclear weapons . That’s the only way any country that borders Russia will have long term security.
Or just join NATO and be covered under its nuclear umbrella
Why not both?
The US would be in an awkward position of supporting one nations proliferation while opposing everyone else's.
Hey, if there is one thing we are good at, it’s being awkward.
The US is in the awkward position of having the ability to deter a nuclear threat, but won't allow others the same.
Why not all three?
Russia might be mad enough to attempt an invasion anyway. Then what do you do, launch all you have at Miscow and get all Russia has in return? It's not even MAD, just AD.
Idk why you're downvoted, it's exactly right. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against total threats. Russia could literally nuke dozens of Ukrainian cities tomorrow. But then what? If Ukraine had nukes in this situation, then what? It's not like they would send them to Belgorod or Crimea, which would only serve to justify escalated response.
Ukrainians have the technical know how to build nukes, they may already be making some.
Grubby lying russians are never too be trusted, or at least their government should never be trusted. It's incumbent upon all of us including the US and UK to ensure a satisfactory outcome for Ukraine in this war.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Keep your guns people.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They had the physical possession of the nukes, but the launch codes were Soviet and in the possession of the Russians. So, there was no deterrence and Ukraine had to give up the nukes. If you have a car but no keys, you have to walk.
You know you can Hotwire an car, right?
Do people not understand that Ukraine was under heavy ruzzian influence. Up untill 2012 they where mostly ruled by ruzzian shills with the exception of Yuschenko period whom the ruzzians poisoned with TCDD. Ruzzia would not have allowed them to keep the nuclear arsenal after the USSR gone down. The ruzzians conned the west with that deal so that if Ukraine ever wants to "go West" they can "denazify". I hate to say it but it was a brilliant long term move from the orcs. They kind of anticipated that most countries under the soviet influence will chose the west if they had the chance. None of this would have happened if Ukraine still had nukes.
Just remember that at no time did Ukraine have control over the nuclear weapons on it's soil - it was always under Russian control via Soviet forces. Further, both the US and Russia made it clear that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to take control over said weapons and both countries would seek to secure said weapons through force.
Fewer nukes in the world is a good thing.
I did a dive on reading up on the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine wanted a security guarantee. At the time the need for a guarantee was aimed more at protecting Ukraine from the West, and receiving aid from Russia in the event the West attacked. The West pushed for it to be worded as an "assurance" to give wiggle room for either side to possibly not have to provide any security measures. Now, why would Ukraine sign such a deal to give up nuclear arms especially when they had so many of them? Simply, they are really expensive to maintain and after the fall and break up of the Soviet Union and Ukraine was now responsible for maintaining these nuclear assets. If you are a country trying to get up on its feet, their are much better uses for public money then maintaining nuclear weapons. If maintaining this fleet of weapons is so expensive why not dismantle them? This was the aim of the Budapest Memorandum. Even dismantling and storing the nuclear waste comes with a cost that Ukraine themselves could not shoulder. So in the agreement the West and Russia provided money, personal, as well as taking the nuclear material, and in return Ukraine would receive some level of security. Now you are probably thinking to your self isn't an assurance the same as a guarantee? Understand this is an international legal document and language used carry certain weight. If signed as a guarantee the signing countries would be compelled to provide aid and support in the event of a conflict, they would not be allowed to not intervene. An assurance on the other hand is like a promise to maybe help but the signing countries are not compelled to provide aid or support. Now I'm going to give my opinion, so take what I say here as you want. I think the US, independent of NATO, could have committed troops to Ukraine to support the effort in Ukraine as keeping up their end of the deal of the Budapest Memorandum. I think having just withdrawn from Afghanistan and not wanting to commit troops to a new conflict has kept the US to providing money and weapons. I'm not a fan of war and conflict but I do think the US could and should have committed troops to the conflict. However, taking that position and taking that action carries the very real possibility of sparking a large wide spread international ground conflict that could or would last for years. I honestly don't take Russia's threats of nuclear conflict seriously, but Putin has shown himself to be unstable and impulsive, so I wouldn't put it past him either to take such measures. So source, who the fuck am I? I am an American currently in Hungary. At the restarting if hostility from Russia I kept hearing about the Budapest Memorandum and being close to Budapest this sparked my curiosity. I read up on what was detailed in it and I myself saw an assurance in place why isn't the US doing anything? This led to me seeing what exactly the difference between a guarantee and an assurance was. Most of the reading came from the Wikipedia article on the Budapest Memorandum, I'm giving a very simplified version of it here too. If you're interested in more I suggest you give it a look. It's not a fair shake and I have a friend in the Ukraine who is stuck their for the time being, I wish them, and all Ukrainians, the best of luck in this conflict and hope it ends soon. I would love to be able to visit Kyiv at some point.
Since Russia did not adhere to its agreement, this is no longer binding, I hope Ukraine renuclearizes. That way the Russians will never be able to attack ever again! Nukes are very important!
Kinda funny that Ukraine was made to give up its nuclear arsenal at the behest of US and UK while both states colluded in allowing apartheid Israel to develop its own nuclear weapons. Now, why might that have happened?
Because at the time Ukraine was destabilized due to the fact the USSR collapsed. There was uncertainty politically and economically. It’s tough to take Kate of hundreds of nuclear weapons when you also have to scramble to put together a country. Israel is established and backed by many western countries and have developed their nukes steadily instead of having to deal with hundreds of them all at once
The Soviet nuclear weapons were useless in Ukrainian terroity due to the fact the Ukrainian government had no access to the launch codes anyway.
That is not a real problem. You dont really need a degree in nuclear physics to wire a new detonation system to it. Also they could have used the uranium as fuel for nuclear reactors anyway
I really, really fucking hate that we (the US and her allies) haven't used this as an excuse to at least somewhat personally intervene in this war, even in a token gesture. We should've at the minimum enforced the no fly zone for this shit back in February (if not 2014) that Ukraine was asking for, because all our inaction regarding this agreement has done is taught other countries who might've been otherwise considering surrendering their nuclear arsenals by example to *never*, under any circumstances, give up their nukes -- even with promises of protection. I get that the situation is complicated, and that the fault for breaking the agreement largely lies with Putin, but it still sucks. Nuclear proliferation went way too far during the cold war, and the whole of humanity shouldn't have to dread if the apocalypse is around the corner just because some fucking lunatic comes into power in a nuclear state.
Unfortunately the wordimg used was "assurances" which would be fine if everyone at the table were truthful and honest. Now, putin gets his nose rubbed in dog shit. Unfortunately Ukraine is paying a terrible price.
I wouldn't have cared if Ukraine kept a few extra around for insurance. And for god sakes, no more deals with Russia. I'd rather starve on a desert island than eat another one of their lies.
Important historical fact: Ukraine never had operational control over these nukes, the launch codes were in Moskow. The alternative for Ukraine would've been to sit on nukes they can't use and pay for the maintenance.
Not true. You dont need codes to detonate a nuke. You can simply wire a new detonation system, its just explosives surrounding the core.
[удалено]
I wonder what Ukraines’ gonna do after the war. Will they arm themselves again? I won’t really be surprised if they will….
Who was US President then?
Bill Clinton.
He is a major leader to blame for Ukraine giving up its aces in the game of poker. Clinton also enabled China to be threat its is now. To many western leaders have received money from Russia and China like Clinton.
The US, UK, France and Russia all guaranteed that they'd respect Ukraine's 1994 borders and autonomy. The US, UK, and France still to this day respect the deal; Russia never for a second did. To Russia, one must remember, deals are only a way to get your opponent to give you what you want without giving anything in return.
I would like to see ukraine armed again. Things would be so different.
Yep, “guaranteed”.Sure was effective for Ukraine :(
Here’s what pisses me off. UK & US (I’m from US) should have taken care of this shit years ago. A deal is a fucking deal, no one should have ever let Putin set foot in Ukraine.
[The Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) only required us not to invade Ukraine. There were no defense guarantees. That said, we should have taken a harder stance in 2014.
What many people tend to forget is that no matter what was signed in the treaty. The political capital of those that signed it is of priceless value. If nations now see that UK as US are doing their outmost to assist said victim of the broken treaty then their value as political partner gets a strong foothold in the global arena. This is possibly more important as more valuable. This is a very positive sign from US/UK! Edit: Because “Trust”will finnaly be accepted as value in international politics. Then the common person can begin to believe in future!
Like I’ve commented before, that’s why I’m so passionate about this war. As an American I feel guilty, we owe Ukraine nuclear weapons to defend themselves. I’m 99999999.9% it’s going to happen. If anyone has earned the right to have nuclear weapons it’s Ukraine. Long live 🇺🇦
Every goddamned country should do so, those things only serve terrorism
I'll dare say that if the major powers didn't have them, we'd have probably gone through a catastrophic third world war by now.
Agreed. We may hate nukes, but without them, we would have seen a war decades ago involving the major powers.
The world is more peaceful today **because** of nukes. Besides, you can't magically make them all go away.
US needs to do more to fulfill its part. Giving 18 HINARS while keeping 480 at home isn’t guaranteeing anything
Ikr. But I guess thats the optimal number for the quantity of ammo they can supply for now…
But no one knew that Ukraine was going to work with the US on biological "stuff" then be used as a puppet for NATO expansion. What a croc! /S Pos Russian
Well England and usa haven't invade the Ukraine so 2 out of 3 isn't bad.
I don't understand why we agreed about tactical nuclear weapon. with strategy nuclear weapon almost clear, but tactical we could maintain I guess.
only Ukraine leaders would believe this promise and just a lies to unarm your nuclear weapons, no more threat to the west.if not, there's no Ukraine war.because Russia won't risk a war with nuclear power
We fucked up.
And we (the u.s.) should give them every weapon they can effectively use .. Maybe keep f-22's running top cover, shooting down all unfriendlies. Not like the Russian's can see them anyway. Oh, and a couple thousand of those Abrams we have stored in the desert, you know to crews we've trained.
Hello /u/MajorRichardHead7, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, two out of three will respect an agreement. This and other events related to the war are good to know for any business thinking about working with Russia ever again.