Russian President Boris Yeltsin, U.S. President Bill Clinton, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, and British Prime Minister John Major signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in Budapest, Hungary, on December 5, 1994. Known as the Budapest Memorandum, the agreement led to the dismantling of Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. Source: Radio Free Europe
A prevalent narrative suggests that Ukraine once possessed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal and relinquished it in exchange for Russia’s promise not to invade, as outlined in the Budapest Memorandum. With Russia allegedly violating this agreement, some argue that Ukraine should develop or acquire new nuclear weapons. However, this narrative is not supported by factual evidence.
Before 1991, the nuclear weapons located in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan were under the control of the USSR and managed by Moscow. In 1991, the former republics of the Soviet Union within the Commonwealth of Independent States agreed to transfer all these nuclear armaments to Russian control.
Ukraine’s declaration of state sovereignty upon independence stated that the country would adopt a stance of permanent neutrality, abstain from participating in military alliances, and remain free of nuclear weapons.
The Budapest Memoranda of 1994 formalized the agreement on the repatriation of nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to Russia, with assistance from Russia, the USA, and the UK. These memoranda included commitments from the USA, Russia, and the UK:
- Weapons should only be used against these countries under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
- Refrain from economic coercion to subordinate the rights of these countries to secure advantages of any kind
- Seek UN Security Council intervention if aggression involving nuclear weapons occurs against these countries.
- And refrain from using nuclear weapons against these three countries.
So who violated this memorandum?
Many believe the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine violated the memorandum. However, the Russian President justified the actions using the UN Charter. No case was taken to the UN Security Council, which could theoretically make a legal judgement but is hindered by the political positions of permanent members.
The narrative does not mention that the US (and potentially the UK) may have influenced the situation through economic measures such as sanctions and political activities, including funding NGOs and similar groups. Notable events in Ukraine include the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the US-backed coup in February 2014. In December 2013, Victoria Nuland, then US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, stated that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in “democratic skills and institutions, civic participation, and good governance” in Ukraine since 1991.
Belarus complained to the United States regarding its economic and political violation of the Belarus Memorandum. In response, the US Embassy stated that these memoranda are “not legally binding” and asserted that their actions are exempt due to involvement in “human rights” issues.
Conclusions
Ukraine did not control the Soviet nuclear weapons on their territory; these were managed by Moscow. At independence, Ukraine aimed to be nuclear-free, neutral, and not part of any military alliance.
The Memorandum for Ukraine was breached by both Russia (violating Article 2 but justified under the UN Charter) and the US (violating Article 3, but the US did not consider the Memorandum legally binding).
Repatriating nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan was crucial due to instability in the former USSR’s constitutional republics. Given the political instability and occasional terrorist activities of Ukrainian leadership, it is fortunate that Ukraine does not have access to such weapons.
Sources
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States signed the Minsk Agreement on December 30, 1991, agreeing that the Russian government would be given charge of all nuclear armaments (see 1991 Minsk Agreement on Strategic Forces). However, as long as the weapons remained in Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, the governments of those countries would have the right to veto their use. The target date for dismantling the weapons was set for the end of 1994. (Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance)
Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine
This declaration includes the text:
“The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons” (see Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine).
Budapest Memoranda for Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan
The texts for the three memoranda are essentially the same and include the following articles:
1: To “respect the sovereignty and the existing borders of these three independent countries.”
2: Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of these countries. None of their weapons “will never be used against” these three countries “except in self defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”
3: In accordance with the CSCE final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interests the exercise by” these countries “of the rights inherent in “their” sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”
4: “Reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to” these three countries “as a non-nuclear weapon State Party(s) to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if” and of these countries “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”
5: “Reaffirm, in the case of “ these three countries,” their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
The documents can be found in pages 7 – 9 of Security Assurances
The Memoranda are not Legally Binding
Comment by Glenn Diesen in his book “The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order”:
“When the U.S. imposed sanctions on Belarus in 2013, Washington explicitly stated that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding and that U.S. actions were exempted as they aimed to protect human rights:
Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously and do not believe any U.S. sanctions, whether imposed because of human rights or non-proliferation concerns, are inconsistent with our commitments to Belarus under the Memorandum or undermine them. Rather, sanctions are aimed at securing the human rights of Belarusians and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other illicit activities, not at gaining any advantage for the United States. US Embassy in Belarus, “Belarus: Budapest Memorandum,” U.S. Embassy in Minsk, 12 April 2013.
The Western-backed coup in 2014 had been an even more blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president. The Budapest Memorandum was put aside as the West claimed to have supported a “democratic revolution.” International law imposes rules and mutual constraints in which the various sides have their foreign policy flexibility limited but in return gain reciprocity and thus predictability. Once the West relieved itself from mutual constraints in the Budapest Memorandum, then Russia also abandoned it.”
(See also Statement of the Foreign Ministry of Belarus regarding the US introduction of restrictions towards the Republic of Belarus for the complaint).
Open Parachute 