The Budapest Memorandum: A Broken Promise and Its Consequences for Ukraine’s Sovereignty

When Ukraine gained independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it inherited the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

The newly-formed Ukrainian state faced an existential decision: keep these weapons as a deterrent in a newly uncertain world, or give them up in exchange for security guarantees. Ultimately, Ukraine chose the latter, hoping for security and stability in the post-Cold War order. The agreement that followed, known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, was supposed to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for its nuclear disarmament. However, nearly three decades later, the assurances provided by the Budapest Memorandum have proven to be anything but secure.

The Road to the Budapest Memorandum

After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Ukraine found itself in possession of a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. These included intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic bombers, and thousands of nuclear warheads. The scale of this nuclear stockpile posed not only a military challenge but a diplomatic one as well, with concerns rising from the international community about nuclear proliferation.

Ukraine, in the early 1990s, faced tremendous pressure from the international community, including the United States and Russia, to dismantle its nuclear weapons. Both nations saw Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal as a legacy of the Soviet era that could destabilize the region, especially as newly independent states redefined their national borders. Ukraine’s leaders were also hesitant to maintain these weapons, as they required significant financial investment and posed a burden on the young nation’s security infrastructure.

By 1994, Ukraine was positioned to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a global commitment to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. But the path to NPT membership was not straightforward. Ukraine had inherited nuclear weapons but lacked the infrastructure and political will to maintain them. To assure Ukraine that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected after giving up its nuclear arsenal, the world powers brokered the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

The Elements of the Budapest Memorandum

The Budapest Memorandum was signed on December 5, 1994, by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The core of the agreement involved Ukraine agreeing to relinquish its nuclear weapons in exchange for the following security assurances:

1. Respect for Ukraine’s Sovereignty: The signatories committed to respecting Ukraine’s existing borders, recognizing its independence, and refraining from the use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

2. Security Assurances Against Nuclear Threats: The signatories assured Ukraine that they would refrain from using nuclear weapons against it and would help prevent any other state from using nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

3. Political and Economic Support: The signatories promised to support Ukraine in the event of a threat to its sovereignty, providing diplomatic and political assistance through the United Nations or other forums.

4. Consultation in the Event of a Crisis: The document outlined that should Ukraine’s sovereignty be threatened, the signatories would consult with each other to determine what actions to take.

The Treaties and Their Weight

Although the Budapest Memorandum was not a formal treaty with binding military obligations, the assurances it contained were understood by Ukraine to be as serious and consequential as any international treaty. It’s worth noting that the signatories—especially the United States and the United Kingdom—are countries with significant global power and influence. These nations made commitments on behalf of their citizens, their governments, and their national security interests. Ukraine, which had just emerged from decades of Soviet rule, placed its trust in these assurances. The Memorandum was not just a piece of paper; it was the basis for Ukraine’s decision to remove its nuclear weapons, effectively disarming itself for the sake of peace.

From Ukraine’s perspective, the Budapest Memorandum was an explicit security guarantee, and its acceptance was based on the belief that the signatories would act in good faith to honor these assurances. Had Ukraine known that Russia and the United States would ultimately violate these pledges—initially with Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, and subsequently full scale invasion in 2022—it is highly unlikely that they would have agreed to the terms in the first place.

The Betrayal of Ukraine’s Sovereignty

Fast forward to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. This marked a direct violation of the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine’s territorial integrity was openly threatened, and the promises made in 1994 were broken in spectacular fashion. While the United States and the United Kingdom condemned Russia’s actions, they did little to prevent them. There was no military intervention, no real enforcement of the security assurances Ukraine had been promised.

Many critics argue that the lack of immediate action by the United States and the United Kingdom created a dangerous precedent, not just for Ukraine, but for global non-proliferation efforts. The message sent was clear: security assurances made by powerful states are not always worth the paper they are written on.

Why Ukraine Wouldn’t Have Agreed if They Knew

When Ukraine agreed to denuclearize, it did so based on the assumption that the Budapest Memorandum’s guarantees were real and that the global powers would uphold their commitments. Ukraine was under the belief that its sovereignty was as important to these powerful nations as it was to Ukraine itself.

Had Ukraine known that Russia, with the support of a divided international community, would violate its territorial integrity, and that the United States and the United Kingdom would fail to respond decisively, it likely would have kept its nuclear arsenal. For a nation emerging from Soviet control, the assurances of security were more than just diplomatic language—they were vital to the survival and security of the newly-formed Ukrainian state.

Conclusion: The Need for Accountability

The Budapest Memorandum, while not a legally binding treaty, was an agreement grounded in mutual trust and the shared belief in a stable, peaceful world order. The failure of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia to fully honor the terms of the agreement undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and raises important questions about the reliability of security assurances in international diplomacy.

In retrospect, it’s clear that Ukraine would not have relinquished its nuclear weapons if it had known the world powers would not defend its sovereignty in the face of aggression. The lessons of the Budapest Memorandum are clear: security guarantees, whether written in a memorandum or a treaty, must be honored—because breaking promises of security comes with real, painful consequences.

In the years since the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine has been forced to turn to other security measures, including seeking NATO membership. The Budapest Memorandum, once viewed as a cornerstone of non-proliferation, has become a painful reminder of the price paid for trusting the promises of world powers that ultimately failed to act in Ukraine’s defence. In fact, the United States has openly voted in opposition to Ukrainian sovereignty in recent weeks along with Russia and now Ukraine, were it not for the European Union and the United Kingdom would be facing open disdain for their sovereignty, from two superpowers who once pledged their support, alone.

Slava Ukraini!

~Wayne