promises broken?

I remember the signing of the Budapest Memorandum and the rather spurious guarantees it gave it would be interesting to lay them out. Like the man raising the red flag, we face a future caused by passed agreements and fudging many issues.

A Broken Promise: The Budapest Memorandum and the Undoing of Post-Cold War Security Architecture Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, examining its historical context, legal and political intricacies, ultimate failure, and profound legacy for international security. The Memorandum was a landmark achievement of post-Cold War diplomacy, facilitating the denuclearization of Ukraine, which had inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In exchange for relinquishing these weapons and acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Ukraine received commitments from the Russian Federation, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

The agreement was predicated on a "constructive ambiguity," most notably in the distinction between the English term "assurances" and the Ukrainian and Russian term for "guarantees." This ambiguity, while enabling the deal, concealed a fundamental divergence in expectations and obligations that proved fatal. The Memorandum contained six key commitments: to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and existing borders; to refrain from the threat or use of force; to refrain from economic coercion; to seek UN Security Council action in the event of nuclear aggression; a negative security assurance against the use of nuclear weapons; and a pledge to consult if issues arose.

The Russian Federation systematically and flagrantly violated these commitments, beginning with the 2014 annexation of Crimea and war in the Donbas, and culminating in the full-scale invasion of February 2022. These actions constituted a direct breach of at least three of the six articles. Russia's response to accusations of violation has been a campaign of denial, disinformation, and legalistic sophistry, arguing variously that the agreement was not legally binding, that its only obligation was to not use nuclear weapons, and that the 2014 change of government in Kyiv nullified the pact.

The responses of the other signatories have been divergent. The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned Russia's actions and interpreted their "assurance" as a political obligation to provide Ukraine with massive military, financial, and humanitarian support and to impose severe sanctions on Russia, stopping short of direct military intervention. For Ukraine, the Memorandum's failure represents a profound betrayal and has led to a hardened conviction that only full NATO membership can provide credible security.

The legacy of the Budapest Memorandum is a catastrophic blow to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. It has severely damaged the credibility of security assurances as a tool to persuade states to forgo nuclear weapons, creating a powerful "Ukrainian lesson" that nuclear arms are the only ultimate guarantor of sovereignty. The failure of the agreement serves as a stark warning about the inadequacy of politically binding assurances in the face of great power aggression. This report concludes that future disarmament efforts must move beyond the Budapest model, requiring legally binding, ratified treaties with clear, automatic, and enforceable consequences for violation to restore faith in the non-proliferation bargain.

Section I: The Post-Soviet Nuclear Inheritance: A Proliferation Crisis in the Making

The collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in December 1991 was not merely a geopolitical earthquake; it triggered the single greatest nuclear proliferation crisis in history. The dissolution of the centralized Soviet state left a vast and fearsome nuclear arsenal scattered across the territories of four newly independent nations, creating an unprecedented strategic challenge that would define the security landscape of the 1990s and set the stage for the Budapest Memorandum.

The Dissolution of the USSR and the Nuclear Question

On December 26, 1991, the formal termination of the USSR gave birth to four new nuclear-armed states: the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Overnight, the carefully managed bipolar nuclear order vanished, replaced by a chaotic and uncertain multipolar reality. The Soviet arsenal, comprising an estimated 35,000 nuclear weapons at thousands of sites across eleven time zones, was no longer under the singular control of Moscow.

Ukraine inherited the most significant portion of this arsenal outside of Russia, making it the world's third-largest nuclear power. Its stockpile included approximately 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 44 strategic bombers, along with several thousand tactical nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan became the fourth-largest nuclear power, possessing a substantial number of strategic bombers and ICBMs on its territory. Belarus also hosted a smaller but significant number of mobile ICBMs. This sudden decentralization of nuclear command and materiel posed an existential threat to global stability, raising fears of accidental launch, illicit sale, or the emergence of new, potentially unstable nuclear-armed states.

Ukraine's Unique Position and Capabilities

Ukraine's situation was particularly complex and concerning to international observers. A critical distinction existed between physical possession and operational control of the nuclear weapons on its territory. While the operational command-and-control systems, including the launch codes, remained under the authority of a unified command structure dominated by Moscow, Ukraine had physical control over the weapons themselves. This created a dangerous ambiguity; Kyiv could not launch the weapons, but it could prevent their removal and potentially interfere with their functioning.

More importantly, unlike Belarus and Kazakhstan, Ukraine possessed a formidable indigenous scientific, technological, and industrial base capable of supporting a nuclear weapons program. Key assets included the Yuzhmash (Pivdenmash) missile factory in Dnipro, one ofthe most advanced in the Soviet Union, and a wealth of nuclear expertise centered in institutions in Kharkiv. This latent capability meant that Ukraine could, over time, have potentially reverse-engineered the necessary technologies to establish full operational control over the existing arsenal or even build its own nuclear weapons from scratch. This potential, combined with its vast uranium deposits, made Ukraine's denuclearization a matter of extreme urgency for both Washington and Moscow.

The very concept of the arsenal's ownership became a central point of contention that shaped the entire diplomatic process. From the Russian perspective, the Soviet nuclear arsenal was the indivisible property of the USSR, and as the internationally recognized successor state, Russia was its sole legitimate heir. The weapons in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan were therefore viewed as Russian assets temporarily stationed abroad that needed to be returned.

Ukraine, however, advanced a fundamentally different legal and political argument. As a sovereign nation and a founding member of the United Nations, it considered itself a successor state to the USSR in its own right, not a subordinate entity to Russia. From this standpoint, the nuclear weapons on its territory were a part of its Soviet inheritance, just like any other state property. This was not necessarily a claim to become a permanent nuclear power, but rather an assertion that these weapons were a national asset. This framing transformed the issue from one of simple custodianship to one of sovereign property rights. Consequently, Ukraine's willingness to relinquish this asset was contingent on receiving adequate compensation and, most critically, robust security assurances. The negotiations were thus not merely about non-proliferation; they were intrinsically linked to the fundamental questions of Ukrainian sovereignty and the equitable division of the Soviet legacy.

The Moscow-Washington Consensus:Preventing Proliferation at All Costs.

Faced with this unprecedented crisis, a powerful consensus rapidly formed between the United States and the Russian Federation. Despite the end of the Cold War, both nations shared an overriding strategic interest: to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states from the Soviet collapse. The primary policy objective for both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations, mirrored by Boris Yeltsin's government in Moscow, was to ensure that the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal was consolidated within the borders of the Russian Federation, making it the sole nuclear successor to the USSR.

This shared goal drove the initial flurry of diplomatic activity. An early success was the agreement to rapidly withdraw all Soviet tactical nuclear weapons—which were smaller, more portable, and considered a higher proliferation risk—from the non-Russian republics back to Russia, a process completed by mid-1992. The next major step was the Lisbon Protocol, signed in May 1992. Under this agreement, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan formally committed to joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear-weapon states and to eliminate all nuclear weapons on their territory under the framework of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). While a crucial step on paper, the Protocol's implementation, particularly in Ukraine, would prove to be a long and arduous process, contingent upon the resolution of Kyiv's deep-seated security and economic concerns.

Section II: The Road to Budapest: A Tripartite Diplomatic Tightrope (1991-1994)

The journey from the Lisbon Protocol to the Budapest Memorandum was a complex and fraught diplomatic process, marked by shifting positions, high-stakes bargaining, and the crucial intervention of the United States to mediate between a newly sovereign Ukraine and a powerful Russia. Ukraine's path to denuclearization was not a simple act of compliance but a calculated strategic decision, conditioned on a set of demands that evolved from post-Soviet idealism to hard-nosed realism.

Ukraine's Evolving Stance: From Idealism to Realism

In the immediate aftermath of its independence, Ukraine's position on nuclear weapons was shaped by two powerful, and somewhat contradictory, impulses. The first was a deep-seated anti-nuclear sentiment, born from the national trauma of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. This was reflected in Ukraine's Declaration of State Sovereignty of July 16, 1990, in which the parliament committed the future independent state "not to accept, produce, or acquire nuclear weapons". For many in the pro-independence movement, removing Moscow-controlled nuclear weapons was seen as a prerequisite for achieving true sovereignty.

However, this initial idealism soon collided with the harsh realities of the post-Soviet security environment. A growing and vocal contingent within the Ukrainian parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) and political elite began to view the inherited nuclear arsenal not as a liability, but as the ultimate deterrent against a potentially revanchist Russia. These fears were not abstract. They were fueled by concrete actions and rhetoric from Moscow that challenged Ukraine's newly established sovereignty. A pivotal moment occurred in 1993 when the Russian Parliament passed a resolution laying claim to the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol in Crimea. This act sent shockwaves through Kyiv, reinforcing the arguments of those who believed that only nuclear weapons could guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. As a direct result, Ukraine's negotiating stance hardened, explicitly linking the surrender of its nuclear arsenal to unconditional recognition of its 1991 borders and robust security guarantees.

Kyiv's Three Pillars for Disarmament

As negotiations progressed, Ukraine's position coalesced around three fundamental and non-negotiable conditions for disarmament, which became the central pillars of its diplomatic strategy :
Security: At the forefront of Ukraine's demands was the insistence on robust, legally binding security "guarantees," not merely vague political promises. Kyiv sought an ironclad commitment from the nuclear powers, particularly the United States and Russia, to protect its sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity once it relinquished its nuclear deterrent.

Compensation:

Ukraine demanded financial remuneration for the immense commercial value of the fissile material contained within the strategic warheads. This primarily involved the highly-enriched uranium (HEU), which could be down-blended to low-enriched uranium (LEU) and provided back to Ukraine as fuel for its extensive network of nuclear power reactors, a critical component of its energy sector.

Assistance:

The physical process of dismantling the nuclear legacy on its territory—including 176 ICBM silos, strategic bombers, and related command-and-control infrastructure—was a technologically complex and prohibitively expensive undertaking. With its economy in a state of severe contraction following the Soviet collapse, Ukraine sought technical and financial assistance to cover these costs.

The Diplomatic Process: From Bilateral Stalemate to Trilateral Breakthrough

Initial attempts to resolve these issues through bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia proved unsuccessful. The power imbalance was too great, and mutual mistrust ran deep. This was starkly illustrated by the failure of the Massandra Accords in September 1993. While an initial agreement was reached between Presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Boris Yeltsin, it quickly collapsed upon the Ukrainian delegation's return to Kyiv, demonstrating the inability of a purely bilateral framework to produce a durable solution.

This persistent stalemate prompted a decisive shift in U.S. policy. Washington, which had initially been agnostic about the negotiating format as long as the weapons were removed, recognized that its direct involvement was necessary to broker a deal. The United States transitioned from being a concerned observer to an active mediator. This move was welcomed by both sides: Russia saw Washington as an ally in achieving its core objective of non-proliferation, while Ukraine viewed U.S. participation as a way to level the playing field and ensure its concerns were taken seriously. Ironically, some analysts suggest that Washington's early, single-minded focus on the nuclear issue may have inadvertently elevated the value of the weapons as a political bargaining chip in the eyes of Ukrainian leaders, making a more comprehensive settlement necessary.

The intensified trilateral process culminated in the most critical breakthrough of the entire period: the Trilateral Statement and Annex, signed in Moscow on January 14, 1994, by Presidents Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Leonid Kravchuk. This document effectively codified the grand bargain. It laid out the definitive quid pro quo: Ukraine committed to the transfer of all nuclear warheads on its territory to Russia for dismantlement. In return, it would receive security assurances from the U.S. and Russia, compensation for the HEU in the form of nuclear fuel rods, and technical and financial assistance for dismantlement, largely funded through the U.S. Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The text of the security assurances in the Trilateral Statement was nearly identical to what would later appear in the Budapest Memorandum, marking it as the substantive core of the final agreement.

The final diplomatic act took place nearly a year later. On December 5, 1994, during the summit of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in Budapest, Hungary, the process reached its conclusion. Ukraine's newly elected president, Leonid Kuchma, formally transmitted Ukraine's instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. This act triggered the entry into force of the START I treaty. Simultaneously, the leaders of Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the document that would become known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. China and France later provided their own, separate security assurances to Ukraine in different documents.

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events: From Denuclearization to War (1990-2022)

Date
Event
Significance

July 16, 1990
Declaration of State Sovereignty
Ukraine's parliament declares its intention to become a neutral, non-nuclear state.

Dec 30, 1991
Minsk Agreement on Strategic Forces
CIS states agree that Russia will control the Soviet nuclear arsenal, with a veto right for states hosting weapons.

May 23, 1992
Lisbon Protocol Signed
Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan commit to joining the NPT as non-nuclear states and eliminating weapons under START I.

Sept 3, 1993
Massandra Accords
A bilateral Ukrainian-Russian agreement on nuclear dismantlement is reached but collapses shortly after, highlighting the need for U.S. mediation.

Jan 14, 1994
Trilateral Statement Signed
The U.S., Russia, and Ukraine sign a breakthrough agreement in Moscow, establishing the definitive quid pro quo for Ukraine's disarmament.

Dec 5, 1994
Budapest Memorandum Signed
At the CSCE summit, Ukraine accedes to the NPT, and the U.S., U.K., and Russia provide formal security assurances.

June 1, 1996
Last Nuclear Warhead Leaves Ukraine
Ukraine completes the transfer of all strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement, fulfilling its key obligation.
2001

Last SS-24 Silo Destroyed
The last START I-accountable strategic nuclear delivery vehicle on Ukrainian territory is eliminated, completing the dismantlement process.

March 2014
Annexation of Crimea
Russia invades and illegally annexes Crimea, a blatant violation of its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum.

Feb 24, 2022
Full-Scale Invasion
Russia launches a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, completely repudiating the Memorandum and shattering the post-Cold War security order.

Section III: Anatomy of the Agreement: A Study in Constructive Ambiguity

The Budapest Memorandum is a remarkably concise document, yet its text is laden with complex legal and political meaning. A close analysis reveals that its central weakness—a profound and deliberate ambiguity—was not an oversight but a core design feature. This "constructive ambiguity" was the diplomatic lubricant that allowed the agreement to be finalized, but it also contained the seeds of its eventual failure by creating a framework that was open to fatally divergent interpretations.

The Six Pillars of Commitment (The Text of the Memorandum)

The Memorandum signed in relation to Ukraine consists of six operative paragraphs that outline the commitments undertaken by the nuclear-weapon signatories (Russia, the U.S., and the U.K.).
These are:

To respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. This commitment explicitly references the principles of the CSCE Final Act, grounding the assurance in a cornerstone document of European security.

To refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine, except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

To refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

To seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the NPT, if it "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT, except in the case of an attack on themselves or their allies by such a state in association with a nuclear-weapon state. This is a standard "negative security assurance".

To consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments. This final clause provided the only specified procedural mechanism within the document.

The Critical Lexicon: "Assurances" vs. "Guarantees"

The most significant and consequential ambiguity in the Memorandum lies in the differing terminology used across its three authentic language versions: English, Ukrainian, and Russian. This discrepancy is central to understanding the agreement's inherent fragility.
The English text consistently uses the term "security assurances". However, the Ukrainian and Russian texts use words—гарантії (harantiyi) and гарантии (garantii), respectively—that are most directly translated as "security guarantees". This was not a simple mistranslation or a reflection of linguistic nuance. It was a deliberate choice born from a fundamental disagreement during the negotiations.

U.S. and British negotiators were adamant that they would not provide Ukraine with a "security guarantee" in the mold of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would imply a legally binding commitment to use military force in Ukraine's defense. Such a treaty-level commitment would have required ratification by the U.S. Senate, which was considered politically impossible. Instead, they offered "security assurances," which they defined as a solemn political pledge to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and not to attack it themselves. To ensure this distinction was understood, U.S. lawyers read a formal statement into the negotiating record clarifying that, for all appearances in all three language versions, the lesser English meaning of "assurance" would be the sole implied translation.

This ambiguity, however, was diplomatically essential. For the Ukrainian government, facing a deeply skeptical parliament that was demanding ironclad protection, the ability to present the agreement as having secured "guarantees" was crucial for winning domestic approval for NPT accession. The dual-language formula allowed both sides to achieve their immediate political objectives, but it papered over a chasm of difference in what was actually being promised and expected.

The Question of Legal Status: Political Pledge vs. International Treaty

The debate over the Memorandum's legal status flows directly from its ambiguous nature. The dominant interpretation among Western officials and legal scholars is that the Budapest Memorandum is a politically binding political agreement, but not a legally binding international treaty in the sense of the Vienna Convention.

Several pieces of evidence support this view. First, the document is titled a "Memorandum," a term typically used for less formal political understandings rather than legally binding treaties. Second, it was never submitted for legislative ratification by the U.S. Senate or the U.K. Parliament, a necessary step for a treaty to become domestic law and a clear signal of intent regarding its legal character. Third, much of its language is framed as "reaffirming" pre-existing commitments found in other instruments like the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, rather than creating new legal obligations.

Conversely, Ukraine has consistently argued for the Memorandum's status as a binding international agreement. To bolster this claim, Ukraine formally registered the Memorandum with the United Nations Secretariat on October 2, 2014, for publication in the UN Treaty Series, an act intended to assert its standing under international law.

This fundamental disagreement over the document's nature created a structural weakness that would be ruthlessly exploited. The ambiguity was a double-edged sword. While it was the necessary diplomatic tool that allowed the non-proliferation success of Ukraine's disarmament, it simultaneously created a hierarchy of interpretation. In this hierarchy, the most powerful signatories—the nuclear-weapon states—were ultimately able to define the scope and limits of their own commitments after the fact. When the crisis erupted in 2014, this interpretive vacuum was filled not by a mutually agreed understanding, but by the raw political power of the signatories. Russia simply redefined its obligations to the point of near-meaninglessness, while the U.S. and U.K. defined their response in a way that aligned with their strategic interests, specifically avoiding direct military conflict. Ukraine, the party that had undertaken the most concrete and irreversible action—complete nuclear disarmament—was left in the weakest interpretive position, holding up its end of a bargain whose terms were being unilaterally rewritten by the other parties. The failure of the Memorandum was therefore not an unforeseen accident; it was an outcome latent in the very structure of its "constructive ambiguity," serving as a profound warning that such diplomatic constructs can become a trap for less powerful states.

Section IV: The Breach: Russia's Systematic Dismantling of the Agreement

The commitments enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum, however ambiguous their legal standing, were tested and ultimately shattered by the actions of one of its principal signatories. The Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine, beginning in 2014 and escalating dramatically in 2022, did not merely violate the agreement; it constituted a systematic and deliberate dismantling of its core principles, accompanied by an evolving campaign of political and legal justification.

The First Rupture (2014): The Annexation of Crimea and War in Donbas
The first and most flagrant breach of the Budapest Memorandum occurred in early 2014. Following the pro-Western Maidan Revolution in Kyiv, the Russian Federation launched a covert military operation to seize the Crimean peninsula. This action was a direct and undeniable violation of at least two of the Memorandum's central pillars:

Article1: The commitment "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine". The "existing borders" of 1994, which Russia explicitly pledged to respect, unequivocally included Crimea.

Article 2: The commitment "to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine". The use of Russian military forces, initially disguised as "little green men" but later admitted by President Vladimir Putin, to occupy and then illegally annex a part of Ukraine's sovereign territory was a textbook case of the use of force against its territorial integrity.
The violation did not end with Crimea. Russia proceeded to foment, fund, and provide direct military support for a separatist war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. This prolonged conflict, which claimed over 13,000 lives before the 2022 invasion, was a further violation of Russia's commitment to refrain from using force and to respect Ukraine's political independence.

The Final Repudiation (2022): The Full-Scale Invasion

If the events of 2014 constituted a severe breach, the full-scale invasion launched by Russia on February 24, 2022, represented the complete and utter repudiation of the entire Budapest Memorandum. This act of open, large-scale aggression against the Ukrainian state was aimed at overthrowing its government and dismembering the country. It was a violation of not only Articles 1 and 2, but also Article 3 (refraining from economic coercion, which had been a key element of Russia's pressure campaign for years). From this point forward, the Memorandum was rendered entirely obsolete from the Russian perspective, a historical artifact to be dismissed or twisted to fit a new narrative.

The Failure of the Consultation Mechanism

A critical procedural failure occurred at the very first test of the Memorandum's conflict-resolution capacity. In early March 2014, as Russian forces were consolidating control over Crimea, Ukraine formally invoked Article 6, calling for consultations among the signatories to address the clear threat to its security and sovereignty.

In response, the United States and the United Kingdom agreed to meet and convened a session in Paris on March 5, 2014, with the acting Ukrainian Foreign Minister. However, the Russian Federation refused to attend. Moscow's official reason was that it did not recognize the legitimacy of the new post-revolution government in Kyiv and therefore was not obligated to consult with it. This boycott rendered the Memorandum's only prescribed procedural tool completely impotent at the precise moment it was needed, demonstrating that the commitment to consult was just as fragile as the substantive security assurances.

Russia's violations were not carried out in a political vacuum. They were accompanied by a sophisticated and evolving legal and political counter-narrative, a form of "lawfare" designed to obscure its aggression and create a veneer of justification. This narrative shifted over time to suit Moscow's changing objectives.

Initially, in 2014, the justification was narrowly legalistic and procedural. The Russian Foreign Ministry argued that its commitments under the Memorandum were made to the "legitimate government of Ukraine" under President Yanukovych, and that the Maidan Revolution constituted an "unconstitutional coup d'etat" that brought an illegitimate government to power, thereby voiding the agreement. This argument holds no water under established principles of international law, which dictate that international agreements are between states, not specific governments, and obligations persist through changes in leadership.
As this argument failed to gain international traction, the narrative broadened. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov began to claim that the Memorandum contained "only one obligation—i.e., not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine". This was a deliberate and blatant misreading of the document's text, which clearly contains five other distinct commitments.
By the time of the 30th anniversary in 2024, the narrative had evolved further into a sweeping geopolitical grievance. A spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry asserted that Russia had "strictly complied" with the Memorandum, which she dismissed as a non-binding "package of political agreements". She argued that it was the United States and its European allies who had first violated Ukraine's sovereignty by "unceremoniously" interfering in its internal affairs and "dragging" it towards NATO. In this telling, Ukraine's loss of territory was not the result of Russian aggression but of "internal centrifugal processes stoked by the external destabilising influence of the West".
This calculated evolution of justification—from a flimsy legal pretext to a gross misinterpretation of the text, and finally to a broad anti-Western conspiracy theory—demonstrates that Russia was not simply ignoring the agreement. It was actively engaged in a campaign to retrospectively rewrite its meaning and history, framing itself as a victim responding to Western provocation rather than an aggressor violating its solemn commitments. This strategy of disinformation and historical revisionism has become a hallmark of its approach to international law and security.

Section V: The Signatories' Reckoning: Divergent Narratives and Actions

The breach of the Budapest Memorandum forced its signatories to confront the meaning of their commitments. The result has been a stark divergence in narratives and actions, with each party—Ukraine, Russia, and the Western powers—crafting a position that reflects its experience, interests, and role in the conflict. This reckoning has, in turn, given concrete, operational meaning to the once-ambiguous terms of the agreement.

The Ukrainian Position: A Narrative of Betrayal and a Demand for Real Security

From Ukraine's perspective, the Budapest Memorandum represents a clear and catastrophic failure—a story of a promise made and broken with devastating consequences. The central Ukrainian narrative is one of a grand bargain betrayed: in an act of historic significance for global non-proliferation, Ukraine voluntarily relinquished the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances, only to be invaded by one of the very "guarantors" of that security.

This experience has cultivated a profound and bitter disillusionment with non-binding political agreements. In official statements, particularly around the 30th anniversary of the signing, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has described the Memorandum as a "monument to short-sightedness" and a "strategic mistake" that Moscow ruthlessly exploited. The failure of the agreement is seen as a direct cause of the current war and a dangerous precedent that has undermined global confidence in nuclear disarmament.

Consequently, the "Ukrainian lesson" has led to a hardened and unequivocal policy position on future security arrangements. Kyiv has officially stated that, with the "bitter experience of the Budapest Memorandum behind us," it will no longer accept any "alternatives, surrogates or substitutes" for full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The collective defense clause of NATO's Article 5 is now viewed as the only credible and effective security guarantee. In the interim, Ukraine has also asserted what it sees as its legal right under Article 10 of the NPT to withdraw from the treaty, given that the "extraordinary events" of the invasion have jeopardized its supreme national interests.

The Russian Position: A Litany of Denial, Deflection, and Disinformation

Russia's position is a comprehensive rejection of any wrongdoing,
constructed from a litany of denials, deflections, and disinformation designed to absolve it of responsibility. As detailed in the previous section, the Kremlin's narrative is built on several key pillars:
Dismissal of Legal Status: Russian officials consistently argue that the Memorandum is not a legally binding international treaty but merely a political declaration, and therefore its violation carries no legal consequences.

Narrow Interpretation of Obligations:

The most common Russian claim is that its only substantive commitment was a negative security assurance—a promise not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine—which it insists it has not violated.

The "Coup" Pretext

Russia maintains that its commitments were made to the legitimate government of President Yanukovych and were nullified by the "unconstitutional coup" of the 2014 Maidan Revolution.
Blame-Shifting: The most recent evolution of the Russian position is to blame the West. Moscow claims that the U.S. and its allies were the first to violate the spirit of the agreement by interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs and pushing it towards NATO, thereby forcing Russia to act in its own national security interest.

Denial of Aggression:

Moscow frames its actions not as an invasion but as a response to the will of the local populations in Crimea and Donbas, attributing Ukraine's loss of territory to "internal processes".
This multi-pronged narrative demonstrates a complete refusal to acknowledge the plain text of the agreement or the reality of its military actions.

The U.S. and U.K. Positions: Condemnation, Assistance, and the Limits of "Assurance"

The United States and the United Kingdom have consistently and forcefully condemned Russia's actions as a blatant and indefensible violation of its Budapest Memorandum commitments. They view Russia's invasion as a fundamental assault on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin the international order.

However, their interpretation of their own obligations under the Memorandum has been carefully delineated. They have never accepted the Ukrainian interpretation of "guarantee." Instead, they have defined their commitment of "assurance" not as a promise to go to war to defend Ukraine, but as a solemn political pledge to support Ukraine's sovereignty and to ensure that the aggressor faces severe consequences.

This interpretation has been translated into concrete and massive action. Since 2014, and especially since 2022, the U.S. and U.K. have led an international coalition to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, including tens of billions of dollars in military equipment, financial aid, and humanitarian assistance. They have also imposed the most extensive and punishing sanctions in history on the Russian economy and have worked to diplomatically isolate Moscow on the world stage. More recently, they have entered into bilateral security agreements with Ukraine, such as the 2024 U.K.-Ukraine agreement, which are designed to provide more concrete and long-term security cooperation, learning from the vagueness of the 1994 Memorandum, though these still fall short of a NATO-style mutual defense pact.

The crisis has thus provided a de facto, operational definition for the term "security assurance" as understood by the West. In 1994, the term was defined only by what it was not—a military guarantee. Russia's aggression forced the U.S. and U.K. to give the term positive content through their actions. The response they mounted reveals that a "security assurance" is far more than just a diplomatic protest. It entails a profound commitment to become the arsenal and financier for the victim state, to sustain its ability to defend itself, and to impose crippling economic and political costs on the aggressor. This is a substantial commitment, but one that crucially stops short of committing one's own forces to direct combat. It is a promise to ensure a state is not defeated, but not a promise to prevent it from being attacked in the first place. This new, practical definition of a quasi-alliance will undoubtedly shape the risk calculations and expectations of any nation contemplating a similar non-proliferation bargain in the future.

Section VI: The Enduring Legacy: A Shattered Paradigm for Nuclear Non-Poliferation

The failure of the Budapest Memorandum transcends the tragic fate of Ukraine. Its collapse has inflicted deep and lasting damage on the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, eroding trust, devaluing diplomatic tools, and fundamentally altering the strategic calculus for states considering the pursuit or relinquishment of nuclear weapons. The Memorandum's legacy is a shattered paradigm, one whose consequences will reverberate for decades.

The Erosion of Credibility:

The Devaluation of Security Assurances
The most profound legacy of the Budapest Memorandum is the catastrophic damage it has done to the credibility of security assurances as a tool of non-proliferation diplomacy. The narrative is simple, powerful, and deeply corrosive to the goals of disarmament. Ukraine, a nation that made the "right" choice according to the international community, gave up the ultimate weapon in exchange for paper promises of security from the world's great powers. One of those powers then used its resulting conventional military superiority to invade and dismember the country, while the others, despite providing significant aid, did not intervene directly to stop it.

This sequence of events serves as a stark and compelling "Ukrainian lesson" for any non-nuclear state facing a nuclear-armed adversary. It powerfully reinforces the realist argument that in an anarchic international system, nuclear weapons are the only truly reliable guarantor of sovereignty and survival. Analysts from diverse geopolitical perspectives, including the Indian Council of World Affairs, concur that this failure creates powerful incentives for proliferation. States already possessing nuclear weapons, like North Korea, can point to Ukraine's fate as definitive proof of the necessity of their arsenal. States in volatile regions that may be contemplating a nuclear option, such as Iran, are now faced with the precedent that security assurances from great powers are unreliable and can be violated with impunity by one of the signatories. The result is a weaker non-proliferation norm and a more dangerous world.

A Comparative Analysis: Why the Memorandum Failed Where Other Agreements Hold

The inherent fragility of the Budapest Memorandum becomes clear when it is compared to other types of international security agreements. Its failure was not merely a matter of bad faith on Russia's part; it was a result of its fundamental structural and legal weaknesses.

Comparative Analysis of International Security Commitments

Features the:
Budapest Memorandum (1994)
North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5)
Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ) Protocol

Legal Status

Politically binding political agreement; not a ratified treaty for U.S./U.K.
Legally binding, ratified international treaty
Legally binding, ratified international treaty protocol

Nature of Commitment

"Assurances" (political pledge); explicitly not a "guarantee" of military aid
"Guarantee" of collective defense; an attack on one is an attack on all
"Negative Security Assurance" (legally binding promise not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons)

Action upon Breach

"Consult" among signatories
Obligation to assist the party attacked, including by the use of armed force
Breach would violate international law, potentially triggering UN action and sanctions

Enforcement Mechanism

Ad-hoc; no standing body or pre-agreed consequences
Institutionalized (NATO command structure); pre-planned military response
Varies; often relies on UN mechanisms and international law

Ratification Requirement

No (for U.S./U.K. parliaments)
Yes (by all member state legislatures)
Yes (by signatory nuclear-weapon states)

This comparative analysis starkly illustrates the Memorandum's deficiencies. Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty, it lacked the legal status of a ratified treaty, the institutional backing of a military alliance, and a clear, binding commitment to collective defense. Unlike the protocols attached to NWFZ treaties, its core security assurances were political rather than codified in a legally binding instrument specifically designed for that purpose. The commitment to "consult" proved to be a hollow procedural step, easily boycotted by an aggressor. The Memorandum occupied a weak middle ground—more formal than a verbal promise, but far less robust than a treaty or an alliance. Its failure underscores the critical importance of legal status, clear language, and institutionalized enforcement mechanisms in crafting credible security commitments.

The Impact on the NPT Regime

The collapse of the Budapest Memorandum strikes at the heart of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The NPT is often described as a "grand bargain" with three pillars: non-proliferation by non-nuclear states, disarmament by nuclear states, and the right of all to access peaceful nuclear technology. An implicit fourth pillar has always been the provision of security assurances to non-nuclear states to compensate them for their strategic restraint.

Russia's actions have shattered this pillar. As one of the five recognized nuclear-weapon states and a depositary of the NPT, Russia's role is to be a guardian of the regime. By invading a state to which it had explicitly given assurances in exchange for that state joining the NPT, Russia has signaled that the very architects of the non-proliferation order cannot be trusted to uphold their end of the bargain. This act of profound bad faith deepens the already significant divide and mistrust between the nuclear "haves" and "have-nots," making future progress on disarmament and non-proliferation vastly more difficult. It provides ammunition to those in the non-nuclear world who argue that the NPT is a discriminatory treaty designed to maintain a permanent nuclear oligarchy, and that the security assurances offered are worthless.

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

Synthesis of Findings

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was a product of a unique and hopeful moment at the end of the Cold War. It achieved a monumental short-term non-proliferation success, removing the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal from a newly independent Ukraine and consolidating the Soviet nuclear legacy within Russia. However, this success was built upon a foundation of deliberate and ultimately fatal ambiguity. The Memorandum was not a treaty of alliance but a political pledge, meticulously crafted to mean different things to different parties. For Ukraine, it was the "guarantee" of security that made surrendering its ultimate deterrent palatable. For the United States and the United Kingdom, it was an "assurance" that stopped well short of a military commitment. For Russia, it proved to be a temporary promise, easily discarded when its strategic interests shifted.

The Memorandum was not merely violated by Russia's aggression in 2014 and 2022; its core premises were systematically exploited and dismantled. The failure of its consultation mechanism at the first sign of crisis and the subsequent campaign of Russian disinformation revealed its structural impotence. The enduring legacy is a catastrophic blow to the credibility of the global non-proliferation regime. The "Ukrainian lesson" has devalued the currency of security assurances, creating powerful incentives for proliferation and eroding the foundational trust upon which the NPT rests. The Memorandum's failure is a definitive and tragic case study in the limits of non-binding political commitments in the face of great power aggression.

Recommendations for Future Non-Proliferation Efforts

The international community must learn from this failure to ensure that future efforts to promote nuclear restraint are built on a more solid foundation.

Move Beyond the Budapest Model:

Future agreements that involve a state relinquishing nuclear weapons or a weapons-capable program in exchange for security commitments must not replicate the Budapest model. The reliance on non-ratified, politically binding memoranda with ambiguous language should be abandoned. Security commitments must be codified in legally binding, ratified international treaties that leave no room for interpretive dispute.

Incorporate Credible Enforcement Mechanisms:

These treaties must contain clear, automatic, and severe consequences for violation. The vague promise to "consult" is insufficient. Future agreements should include pre-agreed and self-executing sanctions, diplomatic isolation clauses, and other specific punitive measures that create a credible and powerful deterrent against non-compliance. Ambiguity must be treated as a critical flaw to be eliminated, not a diplomatic feature to be embraced.

Recommendations for Global Security Architecture

Restoring faith in the non-proliferation bargain requires not only better agreements but also a concerted effort to remedy the security vacuum that the Memorandum's collapse has created.

Remedy the Security Vacuum for Ukraine:

The remaining signatories of the Memorandum and the broader international community have a vested interest in demonstrating that violating such assurances carries unbearable costs for the aggressor. This requires providing Ukraine with the necessary military, economic, and diplomatic support to restore its full sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 1991 borders. A successful Ukrainian defense, enabled by international support, is the most powerful way to counter the narrative that Russia's breach was a cost-free endeavor.

Develop More Robust Security Frameworks:

The international community should explore new and more reliable frameworks for providing security to non-nuclear states. This could involve strengthening the security protocols attached to existing Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ) treaties, making them more automatic and enforceable. It could also involve the creation of new forms of security compacts—more robust and legally binding than political assurances, but perhaps more flexible than full military alliances like NATO. The overarching goal must be to restore a measure of faith in the fundamental principle that nuclear restraint will be rewarded with genuine, predictable, and enforceable security, thereby preserving the viability of the global non-proliferation regime for the 21st century.

Works cited;

1. Inheriting the Bomb: A History of Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament and Why It Matters, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0StYS2-TpY 2. What happened to the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons after its dissolution into different ... - Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Soviet-Unions-nuclear-weapons-after-its-dissolution-into-different-countries-Were-they-divided-among-the-new-countries-or-destroyed 3. What Happened to the Soviet Superpower's Nuclear Arsenal? Clues for the Nuclear Security Summit | Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/what-happened-soviet-superpowers-nuclear-arsenal-clues-nuclear-security-summit 4. Inheriting the Bomb: The Collapse of the USSR and the Nuclear Disarmament of Ukraine - Belfer Center, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/inheriting-bomb-collapse-ussr-and-nuclear-disarmament-ukraine 5. Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future | Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/budapest-memorandum-25-between-past-and-future 6. Budapest Memorandum Myths | FSI, https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/budapest-memorandum-myths 7. To Disarm or Not to Disarm? Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament and the Annexation of Crimea, https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/305/shapka.pdf 8. The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-budapest-memorandum-and-u-s-obligations/ 9. Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future - Belfer Center, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/budapest-memorandum-25-between-past-and-future 10. Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance - Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance 11. RUSSIA, https://pircenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Russia-Confidential-2014_03-ENG.pdf 12. Ukraine's Nuclear Moment | Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ukraine's-nuclear-moment 13. Filling the Security Void of the Budapest Memorandum - Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/filling-the-security-void-of-the-budapest-memorandum 14. Ukraine Symposium – The Budapest Memorandum's History and Role in the Conflict, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/budapest-memorandums-history-role-conflict/ 15. Rethinking the Budapest Memorandum from the Perspective of Ukrainian- Russian Relations in the Post- Soviet Period1, https://cejiss.org/images/issue_articles/2020-volume-14-issue-4/cejiss-14-4-2-shymanska.pdf 16. Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/ 17. The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/ 18. Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum 19. Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement | Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement 20. The Breach: Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum - Wilson Center, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Issue Brief No 3--The Breach--Final4.pdf 21. Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - UNTERM, https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/0879ba22-6678-4864-9ef3-f0b1349ab0b2 22. Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances) - "The World and Japan" Database, https://worldjpn.net/documents/texts/mt/19941215.O1E.html 23. UNITED NATIONS General Assembly Security Council, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/s_1994_1399.pdf 24. 1994-12-05-Budapest-Memorandum.pdf - National Security Archive, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/semon9-giki0/1994-12-05-Budapest-Memorandum.pdf 25. From Budapest Memorandum to Ukraine Compact: A Conundrum of Guarantees - RUSI, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/budapest-memorandum-ukraine-compact-conundrum-guarantees 26. Has any nation invoked Budapest Memorandum justifying support for Ukraine? - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/15ffu5p/has_any_nation_invoked_budapest_memorandum/ 27. The Budapest Memo holds keys to ending the Ukraine war - Responsible Statecraft, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/budapest-memorandum/ 28. The United States appears to be in violation of the Budapest Memorandum which disarmed Ukraine of nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. The agreement signed by the US in 1994 specifically prohibits economic coercion against Ukraine. : r/europe - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ivpvd6/the_united_states_appears_to_be_in_violation_of/ 29. EUobserver opinion: Opinion: Russia and the Budapest memorandum, https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/vjhudsx069qv/nieuws/euobserver_opinion_opinion_russia_and 30. Memorandum on security assurances in connection with ... - UNTC, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb 31. Russia has never violated the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum - Disinfo, https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/russia-has-never-violated-the-provisions-of-the-budapest-memorandum/ 32. U.S./U.K./Ukraine Press Statement on the Budapest Memorandum Meeting - State.gov, https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222949.htm 33. Joint statement by Foreign Ministers of UK, US and Ukraine on ..., https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-by-foreign-ministers-of-uk-us-and-ukraine-on-budapest-memorandum 34. Mr. Lavrov, Russia, and the Budapest Memorandum - Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mr-lavrov-russia-and-the-budapest-memorandum/ 35. Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova's comment on the 30th anniversary ..., https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1985517/ 36. Ukraine officially rejects security guarantees other than NATO, https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/ukraine-officially-rejects-security-guarantees-other-than-nato-membership/ 37. Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, https://mfa.gov.ua/en/news/zayava-mzs-ukrayini-z-nagodi-30-richchya-z-chasu-pidpisannya-budapeshtskogo-memorandumu 38. UK statement on Ukraine: Conference on Disarmament - GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-statement-on-3-march-conference-on-disarmament 39. Ukraine - Hansard - UK Parliament, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-12-07/debates/E832A14D-F083-44B2-B02E-F23051566E8A/Ukraine 40. UK security deal with Ukraine: Budapest Memorandum 2.0 or road to NATO?, https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/01/18/uk-security-deal-with-ukraine-budapest-memorandum-2-0-or-road-to-nato/ 41. EXPLAINER: U.K. agrees to come to Ukraine's future defence - Declassified UK, https://www.declassifieduk.org/explainer-u-k-agrees-to-come-to-ukraines-future-defence/ 42. The Budapest Memorandum at 30: Lessons in Geopolitics, Trust, and Fragile Security Assurance - Indian Council of World Affairs, https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=12146&lid=7406 43. Opinion - Signed, Sealed and Irrelevant: The Impact of the Budapest Memorandum, https://www.e-ir.info/2022/04/19/opinion-signed-sealed-and-irrelevant-the-impact-of-the-budapest-memorandum/ 44. Are nuclear weapons an option for Ukraine? - The International Institute for Strategic Studies, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/02/are-nuclear-weapons-an-option-for-ukraine/ 45. Ukraine war: what is the Budapest Memorandum and why has Russia's invasion torn it up?, https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/03/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up 46. Negative Security Assurances After Russia's Invasion of Ukraine - Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-07/features/negative-security-assurances-after-russias-invasion-ukraine