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; andOffer 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:

Right, https://t.co/3eDCDaUVEw
but this is was Clinton was saying in retrospect: pic.twitter.com/XAqe2dWn9x

— oida (@oida) February 15, 2025

That’s what Bill was saying. This is what he was actually thinking:

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.