Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his strong dissatisfaction with the decision made by his country’s leaders in the 1990s to give up nuclear weapons. In an interview with an Italian newspaper, he called the move “absolutely stupid, illogical, and very irresponsible.”
“If I could go back to 1994, I would only trade our nuclear weapons for something that could truly deter any aggressor, regardless of their political power, territorial size, or military strength,” Zelensky remarked during his conversation with Il Foglio.
Zelensky has voiced similar sentiments in the past, as have other Ukrainian leaders who believe that maintaining a nuclear deterrent could have prevented Russia’s invasion in 2022.
“Who gave up nuclear weapons? All of them? No. Ukraine. Who is fighting today? Ukraine,” Zelensky said in a bitter tone last October, suggesting that either NATO should offer Ukraine membership or Ukraine should regain its nuclear capabilities. While Zelensky expressed a preference for joining NATO, Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected both options.
Ukraine declared independence from the disintegrating Soviet Union in 1991 and gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994, under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine found itself with a significant portion of the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, making it the owner of the third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, in addition to a Soviet-era nuclear reactor.
The Budapest Memorandum, signed by the U.S., U.K., Russia, and Ukraine, required Ukraine to transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Ukraine also committed to joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a “non-nuclear state,” effectively pledging not to develop its nuclear arsenal.
In return, Ukraine was given assurances from the signatory nations that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be upheld. This promise essentially made the case that Ukraine would not need a nuclear deterrent.
Importantly, the Budapest Memorandum was not a legally binding treaty that would require the U.S. and the U.K. to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion. Although Ukraine sought such an agreement, Presidents Bill Clinton and John Major were not willing to commit to military action. Instead, it was understood that the U.S. and Britain would provide military aid to Ukraine should it be invaded, a commitment they have largely honored since 2022.
Other countries, including China, later pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, but they did not sign the Budapest Memorandum or make promises to defend Ukraine.
The security guarantees laid out in the Budapest Memorandum were increasingly called into question after 2014, when Russian forces invaded Crimea. Many Ukrainians at the time sought global condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, viewing it as a breach of the Budapest agreement, but both the U.S. and the U.K. were unwilling to escalate tensions with Russia. Russia countered that the memorandum had not been violated because no nuclear weapons were used in Crimea’s annexation.
Moscow has even claimed that the Budapest Memorandum’s only provision was a promise not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, a statement that is clearly incorrect. The memorandum includes six key points, one of which involves the signatories agreeing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
Zelensky has since argued that the only viable alternative to the failing Budapest Memorandum is full NATO membership, which would include protection under Article 5, requiring the alliance to respond if any member is attacked. However, this still doesn’t guarantee immediate military action, and Zelensky sees the memorandum as a failed agreement, even though it hasn’t been formally voided.
Zelensky’s remarks to Il Foglio came in the context of a conversation he had with former President Donald Trump regarding the Budapest Memorandum. Zelensky shared that Trump expressed understanding of Ukraine’s hesitation to rely on vague promises, such as those offered in ceasefire talks.
In their discussion, Zelensky cited Putin’s disregard for the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Accords, which had previously halted fighting with Russian-backed separatists, as evidence that Russia’s commitments cannot be trusted.
“Almost everything depends on what we Ukrainians are able to secure to protect ourselves, because we will not make the mistakes of the past again,” Zelensky told Il Foglio.
Zelensky believes that Putin has no real interest in ending the war in Ukraine but expressed hope that Trump could facilitate a peaceful negotiation with Russia.
“It will not happen quickly. But Trump, thanks to his strength, sanctions, the strength of the U.S., and the economy, can speed it up,” Zelensky explained.
Zelensky insisted that Ukraine must be part of the negotiations, rather than allowing the U.S. to handle talks with Russia alone. He also emphasized the importance of European nations’ involvement.
“As for what the set-up of the talks will be: Ukraine, I really hope Ukraine will be there, America, Europe and the Russians. Yes, I would really want that Europe would take part, because we will be members of the European Union,” he said.
{Matzav.com}
Actually, giving up nukes was brilliant, logical, and extremely responsible.
Ukrainian society was a failed society long before the war with Russia.
(Just look up the pre-war stats on poverty, alcoholism, corruption, child neglect, human trafficking, and more.)
Abysmally corrupt government too.
Frightening to think how such people would’ve handled nukes.
Yes it was You allowed Putin to
Take control
Considering how the Budapest agreement was violated in the most egregious way possible by one of the three key signatories, I would agree that in retrospect it turned out to be foolhardy.
Not without some obvious caveats, though.
Although the nukes were on Ukrainian territory and considered to be Ukrainian property, the Ukrainians never fully controlled the launch sequences and processes.
For Ukraine to actually have had a meaningful nuclear umbrella, they would have had to spend years (and tens of millions of dollars) to develop their own launch control and guidance systems.
The issue with that is that at the time Ukraine was broke and short on manpower. They were also mostly allied with Russia at the time.
The Ukrainian government made the decision that the guarantees from the Russians and the Americans were a better play than trying to make the nukes viable, go it alone, and risk sanctions for proliferation.
With the information available at the time, it was a fairly conservative move.
In retrospect, it didn’t play out well. Who knows how things would have turned out had we chosen a different adventure.