Why Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons — and what that means in an invasion by Russia

npr ^

[algore]

Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.

Now, that agreement is front and center again. It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought.

But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one.

And I think perhaps there was even a certain sense of complacency on the Ukrainian part after signing this agreement to say, "Look, we have these guarantees that were signed," because incidentally, into Ukrainian and Russian, this was translated as a guarantee, not as an assurance.

So they had this faith that the West would stand by them, or certainly the United States, the signatories, and Great Britain, would stand up for Ukraine should it come under threat. Although, the precise way was not really proscribed in the memorandum

[mylife]

they pissed away their rights and agreed not to join nato

Putin has them by the balls

[NorseViking]

These false narratives are tiresome. They never had operational controls over the nukes. Also, does anyone have an idea of where Iran, China, and North Korea got their missile designs? Ukraine sold ALCMs to them for reverse engineering and outright supported the Nork ICBM program.

[LibFreeUSA]

If the powers that be don’t care about our southern border being invaded, why should we care about Ukraine’s border being invaded.

[dfwgator]

They effed up, they trusted Clinton.

[TigersEye]

Yep, it’s just more Biden propaganda.

Even if Ukraine had made those systems their own it’s absurd to think they would ever use them in a battle with Russia. That would be like North Korea using nukes in a dispute with China. Suicide.

[9YearLurker]

Clinton? 1991?

[DesertRhino]

Thank god that hopelessly corrupt bunch with a strong nazi contingent doesn’t have the bomb. Corruptocrats would have sold them for cash, and Azov and Svoboda would sneak one into Moscow.

[9YearLurker]

Ah, sorry—misscanned the article. Ha ha—trusted Clinton.

[allendale]

No nuclear armed nation has ever lost territory to a conventional invasion or been forced into an unfavorable peace. Notice that India and Pakistan have been relatively peaceful since each obtained nuclear weapons and the China-India conflict has never seen a repeat of 1962. Nuclear armed nations don’t fight each other in conventional, territory grabbing wars.

The ultimate deterrent preventing China from trying to seize Russia’s underpopulated rich Pacific possessions and the treasure house of Siberia are Russia’s nuclear weapons.

[Fido969]

Everything changed when Biden botched Afghanistan and left Afghanis that helped Americans to fend for themselves.

The promise of American protection suddenly became worthless.

[lightman]

If the powers that be don’t care about our southern border being invaded, why should we care about Ukraine’s border being invaded.

Why shouldn't we take Cuba while Russia is otherwise engaged?

Seriously.

I like Cuban cigars.

[Billthedrill]

It's not quite that straightforward. HERE is a description of events following the fall of the Soviet government in late 1991 and what the three new states (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) who found themselves in physical possession of nuclear weapons were presented with. The agreement to respect the borders of Ukraine was between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine, with no other parties involved and no ratification of any potential treaty by the U.S. Senate. It was actually the new Clinton administration who ended up with the call, and it wasn't unanimous by any means.

Moreover, thoughtful American voices counseled Ukrainians that the best possible guarantor of that independence lay in an independent nuclear deterrent. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter’s national security advisor), the Clinton administration’s focus on Ukraine’s nuclear status was misplaced. In reality, Brzezinski argued, the continued strength of Russia’s age-old “imperial impulse” necessitated that the U.S. recognize “the fact that Ukraine’s independent existence is a matter of far greater long-range significance than whether Kiev does or does not promptly dismantle its post Soviet nuclear arsenal.” American political scientist John Mearsheimer concurred with Brzezinski’s assessment: “Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression.”

There's much more detail in the linked article. My point is that an ad hoc arrangement that served for the time has come back to haunt us. Russian clearly feels her own declarations of the safety of Ukraine's borders are null and void after the events of three decades plus; how bound the U.S. is must be balanced against the propriety and our actual ability to do anything about it. And of all the geostrategic thinkers in all the administrations since then the present gaggle of incompetent fools headed by a mental degenerate is probably the least capable.

[DarthVader]

Gave up? LOL!!

[Varmint Al]

Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths of Life1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union.
2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is posed by the Soviet Union.
3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
5. War is not obsolete.
6. Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
7. There is only one way to eliminate nuclear weapons...use them.
8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or with the Russian people.
9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes it is dangerous.
10. Communism kills.
11. Neither the United States, nor anyone else imposes freedom on the people of other nations. Freedom is not an imposition.
12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans yearn.
13. To the Soviet Union, peace means the absence of opposition.
14. To free people, peace means the absence of threat and the presence of justice.
15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident or by design, is pro-Communist.
16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
17. The greatest football team in the history of civilization: the Pittsburgh Steelers of 1975 to 1980.
18. There is no such thing as war atrocities. War IS an atrocity.
19. Regardless of the pain, nostalgia only takes us to those pleasant memories in our past.
20. There IS a god.
21. Abortion is wrong.
22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have access to the mainstream of society.
25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri, Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
29. The wherever-they-happen-to-be Raiders will never be the team they were as when they called Oakland home.
30. The United States will again go to war.
31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a sinful United States.
32. This is frightening and ominous.
33. There will always be poor people.
34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
35. You should thank God for making you an American.

Did they really give them up? No. 7

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[KingofZion]

Yes, and it’s unfortunately a lesson that will be taken to heart by India, Pakistan, Israel, Rocket Man and every other country that gets its hands on nukes.

Basically you are up a creek without nukes as Saddam and Noriega learned. OF course there’s Vietnam and Afghanistan, but who wants to go through two decades of war with a superpower.

[algore]

Rush is dead,
They died with Neil Peart.

P.S

I might agree more with your list if China was substituted for Russia

[cranked]

Notice that the culprit was never mentioned by Leftist sh*thole NPR: Then President, Bill Clinton........

[PGR88]

Both the USA and Russia moved in quickly to dismantle those nukes. The corrupt shytehole that is Ukraine and its oligarchs would have sold them to the highest bidder

It was a better time when the US and Russia could actually cooperate.

[alexander_busek]

I might agree more with your list if China was substituted for Russia the Soviet Union

This list must be over 30 years old. It repeatedly refers to the now-defunct state of the "Soviet Union."

Agree that China is now the greater threat.

Regards,