By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 1994, Ukraine relinquished its substantial nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S., U.K., and Russia under the Budapest Memorandum. Russia’s subsequent invasion of Ukraine demonstrates a blatant disregard for these guarantees, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and highlighting the agreement’s failure to provide promised security. Experts debate the wisdom of Ukraine’s disarmament, with some arguing that retaining nuclear weapons would have served as a stronger deterrent, while others emphasize the practical and political challenges of such a path. The Budapest Memorandum’s failure continues to shape Ukrainian security policy and fuels ongoing discussions about the country’s future relationship with nuclear weapons and international alliances.
Read the original article here
Thirty years ago today, Ukraine made a momentous decision: it relinquished its substantial Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. This agreement, enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum, promised respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Today, that decision casts a long shadow over Kyiv, a stark reminder of broken promises and the devastating consequences of misplaced trust.
The rationale behind Ukraine’s disarmament was multifaceted. The country, newly independent after the collapse of the USSR, inherited a massive nuclear stockpile—a legacy it lacked the resources and infrastructure to effectively manage. The economic burden of maintaining such a potent arsenal, already crippled by the USSR’s bankrupting arms race, would have been crippling. Public opinion, weary of the Cold War’s immense cost, likely favoured disarmament, mirroring similar sentiments in other post-Soviet states considering abandoning their nuclear holdings. This wasn’t a reckless gamble; it was a pragmatic choice made under immense pressure, both domestic and international.
However, the narrative that Ukraine lacked the capacity to control or maintain its nuclear weapons is overly simplistic. While it’s true that the launch codes were held by Russia, Ukraine possessed a significant scientific and industrial base capable of maintaining and potentially even further developing its nuclear capabilities. It was a major center for Soviet nuclear science, technology, and manufacturing, with the expertise and facilities to sustain its nuclear arsenal. The claim that Ukraine couldn’t have maintained these weapons ignores its substantial contributions to the Soviet nuclear program, the skills of its scientists, and its considerable industrial capacity.
The pivotal failure lies not in Ukraine’s decision to disarm, but in the catastrophic breach of the security assurances provided by the guarantor nations. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022 represent a flagrant disregard for the commitments made under the Budapest Memorandum. This blatant violation of international law highlights the vulnerability of nations that choose to trust in good faith, especially when dealing with actors who show a consistent pattern of disregard for agreements and norms.
The consequences of this broken trust extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. Russia’s actions have created a chilling precedent, undermining global non-proliferation efforts and potentially emboldening other states to prioritize nuclear weapons over international cooperation. The perception that security assurances are unreliable might incentivize states to retain or even pursue nuclear weapons as the only guaranteed means of self-preservation.
While critics point to Ukraine’s economic woes and internal issues as reasons to question its nuclear readiness, this argument overlooks the profound implications of Russia’s actions. The focus shouldn’t be on dissecting whether Ukraine could have effectively retained its arsenal; rather, the emphasis should be on Russia’s betrayal of a solemn agreement, and the damage it has inflicted on the very foundations of international security. This breach of trust has far-reaching implications for global stability and the credibility of non-proliferation efforts.
The narrative surrounding Ukraine’s disarmament often gets mired in counterfactuals and arguments over capabilities. Yet, the core issue remains the broken promise. The Budapest Memorandum represented a commitment, and Russia’s violation exposes not only its disregard for international law but also a profound lack of respect for the very principles that underpin a stable global order. The question of whether Ukraine could have maintained its nukes is secondary to the undeniable truth that the security assurances given were not just violated, but utterly disregarded.
The current situation calls for a reassessment of international norms and safeguards. Russia’s behaviour underlines the precariousness of trusting in international guarantees without robust enforcement mechanisms. The actions of the past 30 years demand accountability and a strengthened international framework to prevent future violations of such crucial agreements. The ghost of Ukraine’s disarmament continues to haunt, a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked aggression and the fragility of trust in international relations. The world must learn from this devastating experience, strengthening its commitment to the rule of law and ensuring that such blatant disregard for international agreements never happens again. The international community has a responsibility to prevent future instances of this nature and ensure the security of nations. This necessitates a more robust framework for enforcing international agreements and holding accountable those who violate them, particularly those possessing significant military and political power. Ignoring such crucial failures undermines the entire foundation of international cooperation.