By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Thirty years after the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, President Zelenskyy declared its ineffectiveness, highlighting its failure to prevent war and provide Ukraine with security. He emphasized the need for tangible security guarantees, including strong alliances, reliable weaponry, and unwavering international unity. Ukraine’s rejection of security assurances outside of NATO membership underscores the lessons learned from the Memorandum’s shortcomings. This renewed focus on concrete security measures reflects Ukraine’s determination to avoid repeating past mistakes.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s recent pronouncements regarding the Budapest Memorandum highlight a profound disillusionment with the international security architecture. He bluntly asserts that the agreement, intended to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal, has been utterly ineffective from day one. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and the ongoing full-scale invasion stand as stark evidence of this failure. This perspective underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to secure robust, credible security guarantees.
This lack of effective protection compels Ukraine to seek alternative avenues for ensuring its national security. Zelenskyy’s call for “real alliances and a realistic security foundation,” coupled with the need for substantial defensive weaponry and unwavering international unity, reflects a desperate search for credible alternatives to the perceived failure of the Budapest Memorandum. The implication is that the existing system has demonstrably failed to protect Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to repeated Russian aggression.
The suggestion of Ukraine potentially re-arming with nuclear weapons arises from this profound sense of betrayal and vulnerability. While this path is fraught with challenges – including the considerable financial resources required and the immediate risk of Russian retaliation – it underscores the depth of Ukraine’s desperation for lasting security. This option, however unlikely, reflects the perceived inadequacy of existing international agreements and the need for a more concrete solution.
The argument that Ukraine should not pursue nuclear weapons, given the potential loss of Western support, misses the crucial point: the existing framework has demonstrably failed Ukraine. The implicit threat of Western abandonment in the face of a nuclear program further highlights the asymmetry in the current international system. While some nations are bound by non-proliferation treaties, others freely pursue their own weapons programs without comparable consequences. The current situation leaves Ukraine in a difficult position, essentially forced to choose between accepting continued vulnerability or risking the loss of Western support.
The historical context is critical. The Budapest Memorandum’s inherent weakness is a key element in understanding Zelenskyy’s frustration. Even at the time of the agreement, some, including former Ukrainian President Kuchma, expressed skepticism about the willingness of the guarantor states to provide meaningful protection. This skepticism is now tragically vindicated by events on the ground. The memorandum served as a seemingly empty promise that failed to deter Russian aggression, making Zelenskyy’s claim that it never worked entirely credible.
The debate surrounding Ukraine’s security concerns often overlooks the broader geopolitical implications. The West’s support for Ukraine is driven by multiple factors: a commitment to principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, a desire to contain Russian expansionism, and a need to test and potentially use existing weapons technology. The cynical viewpoint suggests that the conflict serves a purpose for several players beyond just Ukraine’s survival. This intricate web of motives complicates the discussion and adds to the sense of betrayal felt by Ukraine.
However, dismissing Zelenskyy’s concerns as mere propaganda overlooks the substantial evidence supporting his claims. While his rhetoric may have an element of political maneuvering, the failure of the Budapest Memorandum to prevent Russian aggression is undeniable. The underlying message remains: Ukraine requires effective, actionable security guarantees, and the current system has failed to provide them. Ultimately, whether pursuing NATO membership, seeking alternative security alliances, or even exploring the unlikely path of nuclear rearmament, Ukraine’s actions are a direct consequence of a perceived abandonment under the existing international order.
The debate over potential Ukrainian nuclear rearmament inevitably leads to questions about international reactions. While it is highly unlikely given the potential for escalating tensions and nuclear proliferation, the prospect highlights the critical failure of existing mechanisms to prevent such scenarios. The West faces a difficult choice: either providing the necessary guarantees to prevent such an outcome or risk being complicit in forcing Ukraine’s hand. The current trajectory suggests a dangerous possibility that the lack of true security guarantees for Ukraine could lead to a more dangerous future for everyone involved.
In conclusion, Zelenskyy’s assertion that the Budapest Memorandum has been ineffective is not merely a political statement; it is a reflection of a broken international security system. The failure to protect Ukraine has left it with few options, including potentially seeking nuclear weapons. The West faces a pivotal moment; continue down the current path risking a dangerous escalation, or find a way to provide real security guarantees to Ukraine and prevent a situation where nuclear weapons become an even more likely outcome. The urgency of the situation cannot be overstated.