I can't stand the Clintons, but you're way off, barley. The USSR broke up in 1991. All those Ukraine nukes were operationally under the Russian chain of command. Some of the weapons were supposed to be dismantled pursuant to US-Soviet disarmament agreements negotiated by Reagan/Bush and Gorbachev. As a fledgling democracy, most Ukrainians were more concerned with drafting a new Constitution and privatizing their economy than hanging on to aging nukes. The US never put "economic pressure" on Ukraine, but we did double our economic aid (to $310 million) while the Russians privately agreed to cancel $2.5 billion in Ukraine's energy debt. More carrots than sticks.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was exactly what the name says - a memo (not a treaty) with assurances (not guarantees). The official US position is that the Memorandum is not legally binding.
In my opinion, the real mistakes in US diplomacy occurred later with the pell-mell expansion of NATO and the US support for the 2014 Maidan coup. But that's all water over the dam now. Putin is a revanchist thug and an aggressor who must be stopped.
Having said that, I have no doubt that if Ukraine had it to do all over again, knowing what we know now, it would not have given up all those nukes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances
Originally Posted by lustylad
I'm going to have to call you out on this. It's true the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 but that has nothing to do with the Budapest Accords. It was 1994, Bill Clinton and John Major were the leaders of the US and England. Both of them cast themselves as moderates but in truth, they leaned to the left and had both gone on record saying that they could work with Russia.
So, in 1994, Ukraine had one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world (third according to the internet). The Russians had control but Ukraine had physical control of the missiles and their warheads. The missiles were aimed at western countries including England and the United States. You should be able to see why that leadership wanted those weapons gone. Not gone really but back in the hands of those people they could trust in Russia. To this end, the United States applied political and economic pressure on Ukraine. They threatened to isolate the country politically. They promised financial aid. Note, not like Biden to with hold the aid but to never come up with the aid in the first place.
There was pressure exerted on Ukraine and finally, promises were made. I don't care if it is not an inked deal. The Paris Climate Treaty was not ratified by the Senate but Obama pretended that it was the law of the land. We made an ambiguous promise to Ukraine that was to stall Russia. Biden screwed up by taking away that ambiguity with his statements about "minor incursions".
So, what I said was true, pressure was exerted, Ukraine gave up a means of defense, and the US made promises that they are failing to keep.
) on listening to it on National Palestinian Radio. I just know the USA, with the blessings of those involved, let fissionable material from east europe go stateside.
