For Those Who Didn’t (And Still Don’t) Get The Memo
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine 3 years ago (and even going back to 2014) one refrain has been that the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US (and the UK) to defend Ukraine against invasion. Trump’s announcement of negotiations with Putin, and the dispensing of home truths about Ukraine’s prospects for joining Nato, have led to a spike in invocations of the Budapest Memorandum. (I could refer to it as the “BM” which would be appropriate, as will be seen, but I’ll desist).
Brief summary: the Budapest Memorandum does no such thing. Full stop.
Clue #1: It is a “memorandum.” Not a treaty. It was not ratified by the US Senate.
But let’s look into the actual language. Anyone who reads at a 5th grade level, and who has actually read it, will immediately grasp its (lack of) content. (Many of those shrieking about the Memorandum evidently fail one or both of those criteria).
Here ’tis.
The US, UK, and Russia promise not to nuke or invade Ukraine. Well, since only Russia was a threat to do so, this is creating a mirage of symmetry in a totally asymmetric reality. Neither the US or the UK gave up anything. Nor did Russia–see below.
And for those who are slow: a promise not to invade is not a promise to defend. Negative obligation vs. positive obligation. Not a trivial difference.
Moving on. To the best part. (Circled for your convenience).
What’s the enforcement mechanism? If Ukraine is invaded or nuked there is a commitment to take it up with the UN Security Council. Where Russia had/has a veto.
Meaning that the Memorandum cannot be enforced against the only party that was likely to, had the incentive to, and in the event did, violate it.
For those who are visual learners, here’s a picture of the Memorandum’s enforceability:
I think the big problem here is that people have somehow gotten the idea that Budapest was about protecting Ukraine. In fact, it had absolutely nothing to do with protecting Ukraine.
At the time of signing in 1994, the big fear in the US (and the rest of the West) was loose nukes in the ex-USSR. And Ukraine was a particular source of concern because of its preternatural (even by Sovok standards) corruption. Concern about loose nukes also drove the Nunn-Lugar Soviet Threat Reduction Act of 1991, which had four objectives:
- Consolidate and secure WMD in a limited number of secure sites;
- Inventory and account for these weapons;
- Provide safe handling and safe disposition of these weapons as called for by arms control agreements; and
- Offer assistance in finding gainful employment for thousands of former Soviet scientists with expert knowledge of WMD or their delivery systems.
Budapest was adopted pursuant to all these objectives, especially 1-3.
Note that Nunn-Lugar was the “Soviet Threat Reduction Act,” and Ukraine was ex-Soviet. Budapest was a mechanism to get nukes out of an ex-Sov country, consolidate them, inventory them, and dispose of them. Protecting Ukraine’s sovereign integrity had nothing to do with it. Indeed, it was a mechanism to override Ukrainian sovereignty, by cajoling them into surrendering nukes.
All of the grandiose language about protecting Ukraine from invasion or nuclear attack was just a fig leaf. Pure Kabuki theater. Meaningless diplomatic jabber: and that’s all that any contract without a credible enforcement mechanism is.
Another clue is the identity of the American and British interlocutors–Slick Willy Clinton and Fast Tony Blair. They were great at making high sounding promises that vanish at the touch.
But at least you have the consolation of knowing that Bill is really, really, broken up about it:
So the Budapest Memorandum is sound and fury, signifying nothing. A scrap of paper that achieved its true purpose–securing nukes–under the guise of giving solemn guarantees to Ukraine. Guarantees that are–and were–transparently fraudulent because they could not be implemented against the only party that could or would violate the supposed commitments.
So if anyone tells you “But but but the Budapest Memorandum,” now you know. It does not mean what they think it means.
It means nothing at all.
not sure why you posted this, SWP
Putler and his Kremlinoids broke treaties they had with Ukraine, which included border treaties.
At this point, the US has not been defending Ukraine – it has been supporting Ukraine defending itself, and given the hoodwink that Slick Willie pulled on Ukraine, that seems appropriate.
Well, that’s apart from the US posture as a “defender of democracy.”
Ukraine is the largest country in Europe. It has been working its way towards Europe for a long time, including as a member of the European Parliament, and as an aspiring member of the EU.
Ukraine was the reason that the sovok union broke up in 1991. Ukraine sent troops to support US troops in various engagements, including Iraq.
The supply of weapons to Ukraine has allowed the US to 1) test its weapons and 2) to boost US economy (jobs, etc.)
The US has also been able to see what “modern” warfare looks like – trench warfare with drones. Ukraine’s army has far more battle experience than NATO or any NATO country.
The US has continued to maintain that it will not send US troops to Ukraine.
Rasha is not a country – it is a territory which is and always has been held together by force.
As such, it is subjected to Kremlinoids, including but not limited to little putzes like Putler.
Kremlinoids do not negotiate – that goes back before sovok times, but there are still plenty of people around who tried to negotiate with Kremlinoids, and can confirm that they do not negotiate. And any “agreement” is simply another opportunity to break it.
Given that Putler has rubble-ized and mined (land mines) large areas of Ukraine for no good reason, most people think that it should stop, and he should pack up, go home, and pay reparations for all the terror and waste he has inflicted on Ukraine.
I’m not sure what will get him to that point.
But I keep thinking of Operation Linebacker and its follow-ons, during which the US bombed the heck out of North Vietnam, which finally got the (sovoks and) the Vietcong to the negotiating table in Paris.
Comment by elmer — February 15, 2025 @ 2:46 pm
“Ukraine has allowed the US to … 2) to boost US economy (jobs, etc.)” Ah, the good old broken window fallacy.
“I’m not sure what will get him to that point” Nothing within the power of the USA, alas.
“the US bombed the heck out of North Vietnam”: what a good model – let the USA try to bomb the heck out of a nuclear power. That might let it emulate the great triumph that was the Vietnam war.
How many more deaths do you want in Ukraine, Elmer? And to what end?
Comment by dearieme — February 15, 2025 @ 3:39 pm
One possible interpretation of Elmer’s remarks is that supplying leading-edge war machinery to Ukraine has been good for American war machinery manufacturers, and has created or sustained American jobs. That sounds very noble until you remember that people are getting killed.
Comment by Michael van der Riet — February 15, 2025 @ 4:07 pm
Why the volte face, prof? You used to be all in for the Ukes.
I suppose NATO (and to a lesser extent, Russia, who are hard learners) have drawn some useful lessons from this conflict.
The Ukrainian army is now the most effective battle hardened force – man for man – outside the middle east. Shame that their average age is over forty.
A war between the 136th and 138th most corrupt countries (Transparency International, 2022) was one which we might have largely ignored.
Comment by philip — February 15, 2025 @ 4:41 pm
@dearieme – I don’t want any more deaths in Ukraine – I did not want Putler or his Kremlinoids to invade Ukraine. I want Putler and his Kremlinoids to be drawn and quartered. Supposedly, US and rashan officials are to meet in Saudi Arabia to start talks aimed at ending the war. We’ll see what happens.
@Michael van der Riet – There was no intent on my part to make war manufacturing sound noble. I will point out, however, that President Biteme did point out that the manufacture of weapons to replace the ones being sent to Ukraine was good for creating and sustaining jobs.
And there is certainly nothing noble about what Putler and his Kremlinoids have done in Ukraine.
Comment by elmer — February 15, 2025 @ 5:35 pm
Ukraine was led down the primrose path to its destruction (cc. Prof. Meiersheimer) by racists like Elmer. But of course you don’t care. The important thing for you is money for military industrial complex.
Comment by A.russian — February 15, 2025 @ 8:51 pm
@A.russian: Russians and Ukrainians are white Caucasians, so where’s the racist angle?
Comment by The Pilot — February 15, 2025 @ 9:26 pm
The pilot,here in Russia we detect racism when we see it, beginning from the time of invasion of Uebermenschen from Germany in 1940s. So now when we see German tanks on Russian soil again we understand that it’s no use to lead theoretical discussions about it.
Carthago delenda est.
Comment by A.russian — February 15, 2025 @ 11:57 pm
Way to miss the point by a mile.
The reason the Budapest Memorandum is mentioned is that it is proof that Russia’s word or promise or commitment to “no future aggression” is worth absolutely nothing, ZERO, ZILCH.
So when negotiating with Russia and they offer a promise to “not attack again”, you discount the value of that offer to zero.
Russia is a militarized fascist dictatorship with imperialist expansionist agenda.
To allow Russia any sort of “win” from their invasion of Ukraine means endless future deaths. The only way to stop the war is for Russia to lose and lose badly. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is a pause.
And for Russia to lose is in the entire world’s interest – from their support of Iran, North Korean (the recent pact with NK was explicitly directed against US hegemony), sending weapons to Hamas, mutual support of China, etc. Russia goes out of it’s way to make friends with every enemy of the USA in the world.
I believe that you used to understand this, Christian. What has changed?
Comment by derriz — February 16, 2025 @ 2:28 am
Classic deflection by Craig here, completely avoiding the key issue here, namely that Trump, the master negotiator, has just sold Ukraine down the river, giving Putin what he has already taken, take a breather and rebuild his forces and then come back and finish the job (and then some) in a few years time. And to add insult to injury, he’s demanded half of the rare earths for this wonderful privilege. Its capitulation – nee appeasement – pure and simple.
As for the lunatic Vance, who knew that the alleged assault on free speech was our biggest enemy? WTAF?? Echoes of Jon Stewart when he joked that he didn’t realise DEI was holding the US back so much.
Only a month or so in and the US has already alienated itself from its allies far and wide. Good going eh?
Comment by David Mercer — February 16, 2025 @ 3:29 am
@David Mercer – Trump is not in a position to “give” Putler anything; and asking for Yurrup to finally step up and pay for its defense – at its own cost, instead of at the cost of US taxpayers – may be “alienation” to some, but it’s common sense. When Obongo and Biteme were giving away money to Yurrup, all we heard was how wonderful Obongo and Biteme were – not the US, just Obongo and Biteme. The NATO countries now have a long border with Rasha, and they should come to grips with it.
Again – Rasha is not a country – it is a territory held together by force, and always has been. Kremlinoids do not negotiate, and any “agreement ” they reach is viewed as something to be broken. As derriz says, the world needs for Rasha to lose – and so do the Russians.
Comment by elmer — February 16, 2025 @ 9:08 am
The only possible compromise I can see is Ukraine ceding territory in exchange for NATO membership. Anything less will simply amount to a pause in proceedings.
All this talk of Europe bolstering their defences is moot if it’s just going to be for some lame, toothless peacekeeping operation. As we’ve seen countless times before, if one belligerent is intent on continuing their activities, there’s sweet f*ck all any peacekeepers can or will do to stop them.
@MvdR: Plenty of military hardware has been supplied to non-combatant nations. It’s been great business for US defence companies.
@A.Russian: No racism here fella. We just don’t like fascists. Don’t be so woke.
@elmer: So if Trump’s got nothing to offer, why the big gathering (sans Ukraine) in Saudi? (also, stop using those silly names)
Comment by David Mercer — February 16, 2025 @ 12:28 pm
@david mercer – NATO membership for Ukraine is out because Putler and his Kremlinoids will not abide by any agreements – that’s a given. So if they attack Ukraine as a NATO member, that means every other NATO member will be at war with Rasha. That’s why the suggestion has been for the European countries to form a joint force – it keeps the US out of a NATO-induced war.
Furthermore, Trump does not have the power to give away Ukrainian territory – not the same as saying that Trump has nothing to give. At this point, Trump is acting a a mediator. Anyone who has ever been involved in litigation recognizes the steps and the technique. A mediator separates the parties, while communicating with both parties. The mediator separately gathers the positions of each of the parties. The US has been communicating with Ukraine. The only exception is that the US is not a neutral mediator. But for Putler the little putz, the little schlemiel, that doesn’t matter, because he wants to be seen as a weighty great chief of the world (a la Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, Ruler of Tomainia or Bacteria, it doesn’t matter), worthy of hanging out only with other great leaders of the world, and not the leader of (to him) a non-existent country like Ukraine.
So what is going to get Putler and the Kremlinoids out of Ukraine and to a negotiation table? The talks in Saudi Arabia are a start, even though everyone knows that Kremlinoids do not negotiate.
PS I like neologisms
Comment by elmer — February 16, 2025 @ 1:18 pm
make no mistake – Putler and his Kremlinoids are hell-bent on genocide in Ukraine, the elimination of Ukraine
here are the details ==
https://eutoday.net/donald-trump-heinous-legacy-in-ukraine/
Comment by elmer — February 16, 2025 @ 8:07 pm
According to Wikipedia which I’ll probably trust on this one, Blair only became British PM in 1997.
Comment by anon — February 18, 2025 @ 9:59 pm