This year it will be 30 years since the signing of an important international document called the Budapest Memorandum, based on which Ukraine ceded to the future aggressor its entire nuclear arsenal, but also a large part of its nonnuclear military weapons and equipment. Why did the neighboring country agree to transform itself from the world’s third biggest nuclear power into a nonnuclear country? Who and what promised it in return for its security and independence? Who and why broke these promises formalized at the highest international level? What does this violation of the oath have to do with the start of the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine and also with the chances of stopping this war. These were among the issues discussed by the experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Failure of the Budapest Memorandum”.
Igor Boțan, the permanent expert of IPN’s project, said that the Budapest Memorandum is an interstate document on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It was signed on December 5, 1994 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the United States.
According to him, the Budapest Memorandum ended long international negotiations on Soviet nuclear weapons left at Ukraine’s disposal after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This arsenal was one of the largest in the world, but the Ukrainian government could not use it since the functions of control over strategic nuclear forces and the codes for launching missiles remained with Russia.
“The negotiations were held with the aim of persuading Ukraine to transfer nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR to Russia. In 1991-1994, Ukraine successively signed the Alma-Ata Declaration, the Lisbon Protocol and acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a nuclear-free state. So, things were prepared so that Ukraine, giving up its nuclear weapon, would have guarantees. The security guarantees, as I said, were offered by Russia, the UK and the United States. The guarantees referred to the avoidance of the threat of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence, but also to the refraining from economic constraints that could violate Ukraine’s rights,” explained Igor Botan.
The expert noted that similar memoranda were signed in the same period with Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Historian Ion Negrei, vice-president of “Alexandru Mosanu” Association of Historians of the Republic of Moldova, noted that the discussed topic is important from several points of view, including because of the war waged by the Russian Federation on Ukraine. In 1994, when the Budapest Memorandum was signed, the world was in a new formula that was configured after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a result of which a number of independent states, the former union republics, emerged.
“In this context, three new nuclear states emerged because there were nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union on the territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, in addition to what was there on the territory of the Russian state. Under these circumstances, the club of states with nuclear weapons expanded since 1991 until 1994. Thus, although the Cold War had been abandoned, a new danger was coming – the territorial expansion of nuclear weapons, with fewer control mechanisms,” said the historian.
Ion Negrei also said that the new states that emerged in the space of the former Soviet Union were weak countries from organizational, political point of view, in terms of the guarantees they could offer in managing the nuclear weapons, etc. Respectively, the need to solve this problem appeared and, in his opinion, it is also the merit of Ukraine that it agreed to accept the status of nonnuclear country, acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and ceding all the arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation for the purpose of destruction.
“In this regard, a situation was created to greatly reduce the nuclear weapons worldwide. And in this process of signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, thousands of nuclear warheads or intercontinental ballistic missiles were destroyed – a very important arsenal. The world breathed easier. And Ukraine positioned itself from the start as a nonnuclear force because the Ukrainian state pursued other goals – to join the civilized world, to develop economically, to become a modern and civilized state. That’s why it agreed to yield up the warheads. Moreover, these were also technically outdated, posing a great danger,” said the vice-president of “Alexandru Moșanu” Association.
According to him, at the OSCE Summit held in Budapest in 1994, Ukraine showed this gesture of goodwill to hand over its arsenal to the Russian Federation for liquidation. This step was welcomed by other signatories, including the United States, because most of the warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles on Ukrainian territory were aimed at the U.S. The UK also welcomed this gesture, and France and China joined this agreement later.
“Thus, the Memorandum was welcomed by all the nuclear states. Ukraine demanded, in exchange for giving up the status of nuclear state, to be offered particular guarantees, normal development conditions,” stated Ion Negrei.
Radu Burduja, director of the Euro-Atlantic Institute for Building Resilience, argued that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Belarus were among the closest republics to Moscow. Ukraine was also one of the largest republics, with several military units with various capabilities, including nuclear ones, located on its territory.
“Specifically, the 43rd Army, which had these nuclear weapons prepared, was located on the territory of Ukraine. According to various sources, there were about 3,000 nuclear warheads and, respectively, launch equipment and platforms. In addition to these nuclear capabilities, there was an enormous number of conventional weapons. Like Moldova at those times, Ukraine inherited military units, aviation, infantry, naval regiments, etc.” said the former secretary of state of the Ministry of Defense.
That’s why, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was a fearsome military force. Under the circumstances, it was decided that at least the nuclear weapons would be handed back to Russia for various reasons. Each state had its own reasons. Ukraine realized that it was expensive to maintain them and this burden somehow had to be taken away from Ukraine’s budget. “At the same time, it must be clear that Ukraine did not give them up voluntarily. There has been enormous pressure from Russia and also from the United States and other powers, for Ukraine to accede to this non-proliferation treaty and surrender the nuclear arsenal. Ukraine also asked to be compensated financially and to be assisted for the destruction and transportation of nuclear warheads and its nuclear arsenal,” said Radu Burduja.
He stated that in financial terms, the U.S offered about half a billion dollars for dismantling the nuclear equipment and transferring it to Russian territory. Russia also agreed to settle some of Ukraine’s debts for Russian gas. Thus, at that time the situation was beneficial for all the participants in the Memorandum.
“Now we are discussing the ambiguous text of that memorandum that had adverse consequences for Ukraine later. But at the time of the collapse of the USSR it was a solution beneficial to all. There are heated discussions about the consequences. Experts fall into two camps. Those close to the military say Ukraine ceded an enormous element of military deterrence. Those closest to politics and diplomacy bring counterarguments because, they say, even if Ukraine hadn’t agreed to surrender the nuclear weapons, pressure would have been exerted to force Ukraine to give up,” noted the former secretary of state of the Ministry of Defense.
The public debate entitled “Failure of the Budapest Memorandum” was the 27th installment of IPN’s project “Impact of the Past on Confidence and Peace Building Processes” which is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
Impactul trecutului
See related articles:
- 100 years under sign of MASSR. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Oppressive regime in Transnistrian region speculates on historical factors
- Alexandru Postica: Language problems and economic interests are persistent challenges in Transnistrian region
- Anatol Țăranu: Vulgar Moldovenism born in MASSR continues to live in Moldova’s realities
- Anneli Ute Gabanyi: Moldova has always been of great geostrategic importance for Russia
- Igor Boțan: Moldova’s biggest threat comes from disinformation campaigns
- Ion Valer Xenofontov: Ideas from secret protocol to Soviet-Nazi pact still used today
- Moldova from Ribbentrop-Molotov to Independence. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Soviet’s actions in relation to the Bessarabians in 1940 are ‘occupation” not “liberation”
- Historian Dumitru Lisnic: Soviets brought their own people to Bessarabia for administrative positions
- Anatol Petrencu: Soviets imposed their way of thinking and way of life in MSSR
- Ex-history teacher from Șerpeni: Village in 1944 was completely destroyed
- Effects of Iasi-Chisinau Operation 80 years later. IPN Debate
- Igor Boțan: Soviets’ 1940 actions in relation to Bessarabians were not “liberation”
- Anatol Țăranu: Annexation of Bessarabia on June 28, 1940 was an agreement between two dictators
- Day of June 28, 1940 between celebration and catastrophe. IPN Debate
- Andrei Curăraru: Deportations were aimed at creating society without values
- Lidia Pădureac: Soviet state committed crimes against humanity
- Alecu Reniță: Deportations must keep us vigilant and as far away as possible from Russia - a struggling monster
- Decapitation and uprooting of nation through deportations. IPN Debate
- Igor Boțan: Propaganda must be combated by imbedding critical thinking
- Nicolae Mihai: In totalitarian regimes, citizens no longer enjoy rights and freedoms
- Festive practices and identity engineering in (post)totalitarian regimes. IPN debate
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: In Russia there is an authoritarian regime with totalitarian tendencies
- Igor Boțan: All legislatures in Moldova were pro-European or had periods when they promoted accession
- EU enlargement after collapse of USSR: causes and effects. Moldova’s lesson. IPN debate
- Andrei Curăraru: EU’s ambition is to become an important political center
- Anatol Petrencu: Collapse of Soviet Union was a triumph for countries annexed by force
- Cristian Manolachi: We must discern in avalanche of political messages. 2024 is a complicated election year
- Political mythologies in history and in actuality. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Political mythology in Ukraine war has been exploited to the maximum
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Authoritarian regimes are effective in disseminating propaganda
- Valentin Constantinov: Today we speak Romanian due to verticality of population of Bessarabia in 1812
- Igor Boțan: Literary language and official language are brought to highest level that unites us all
- Vasile Șoimaru: We are Romanians on both banks of the Prut
- Long path home of the Romanian language. IPN debate
- Statements about Russia terrorist attack: Terror breeds only terror
- Igor Boțan: Moldovan authorities must ensure communication with citizens from left bank of the Nistru
- Alexandru Cerbu about war of 1992: Bodies were lying on the streets in Tighina as in Bucha
- Victor Juc: The Nistru armed conflict was caused deliberately
- 32 years of an unfinished war. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Danger of repeat of horrors that society experienced under communist regime still exists
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: We must detach ourselves from Soviet past and build a European society
- History, an international antidote to political repression. IPN debate
- Flori Bălănescu: In the absence of a Nuremberg-type trial, we cannot talk about condemnation of communism
- Alexandru Postica: Victims of political repression receive far too small recompence against terror they went through
- Role of history in forming person and modernizing society. IPN debate
- Igor Botan: You cannot build a future if you don’t know your past
- Ana Bîtcă: By informing students about political repression, we want to avoid repeat of past mistakes
- Igor Boțan: The Gulag was Bolsheviks’ solution for controlling population’s protest movement
- Ludmila Cojocaru: Soviet system meant repression, extermination, enslavement of population
- Lidia Pădureac: The Gulag was used to destroy people’s uprightness
- GULAG phenomenon: genesis, manifestation, lessons. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Budapest Memorandum would have been very important if those who signed it had considered it binding
- Radu Burduja: Ukraine must draw conclusions after signing Budapest Memorandum
- Ion Negrei: Russia no longer enjoys credibility internationally
- Igor Boțan: Ukraine is key to final Transnistrian conflict settlement
- Natalia Albu: Frozen conflicts mean also a low level of quality of human life
- Octavian Țîcu: Moscow wants Moldova to be Transnistrized
- Frozen conflicts: genesis, dangers, settlement. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Phenomena that occurred in USSR before World War II were typical also for MASSR
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Thousands of people were executed only because they were regarded as a possible source of opposition
- Stalinist repression in MASSR and memory of victims of totalitarian communist regime. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: To better understand how Union of 1918 occurred, we should analyze circumstances in which this occurred
- Alexandru Arseni: Governments in Chisinau and in Bucharest should recognize Union of 1918
- Ion Varta: After Russian Empire collapsed, Romanian national movement evolved into national liberation movement
- Great Union of 1918: lessons for past, present and future. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: When we speak about collapse of Constituent Assembly, we should consider consequences of this for Bessarabia
- Nicolae Enciu: Soviet society was constituted as an antipode of Western society
- Collapse of Constituent Assembly and of chance to democratize Soviet Russia. Effects on country and world. IPN debate
- Anatol Petrencu: In current Russia, there is no democracy
- Igor Boțan: Romania is also obliged to make effort for Moldova to manage to integrate into EU
- Alecu Reniță: Russia is a threat not only to ex-Soviet states, but also to whole Europe
- Igor Șarov: A continuous struggle is led to secure European integration desideratum
- European genealogy tree of Moldova. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Cold War ended because everyone realized what Soviet power actually was
- Ion Valer Xenofontov: Cold War lesson - to win with modesty and to lose with grace
- Anneli Ute Gabanyi: USSR wanted to impose same thinking system on people
- Lessons of Cold War. IPN debate
- Vitalie Stoian: Warsaw Part always intervened inside its borders, not outside them
- Anatol Țăranu: Warsaw Treaty was nothing else but “collective policeman”
- Igor Boțan: Warsaw Pact was a reply to reply
- Warsaw Pact: History without propaganda. IPN debate
- Radu Burduja: NATO was and will remain a successful alliance
- Igor Boțan: Soviet Union became totalitarian and wanted to conquer whole world
- Victor Juc: NATO enlargement occurs at request of states that consider themselves vulnerable
- NATO: History without propaganda. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Russians’ rhetoric on use of nuclear weapons shows that things go bad
- Pavel Moraru: Signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact led to start of World War II
- Mihai Țurcanu: Russia wants to change international order by force
- Truth and lie about beginning of World War II. IPN debate
- Virgiliu Pâslariuc: European development model is a security and prosperity guarantee
- Price and effects of Independence. Comparative study (1877 vs. 1991. IPN debate
- Ion Varta: Russian factor was every time fateful for our national interest
- Igor Boțan: Role of intellectuality in obtaining Independence was prolific
- Ion Negrei: Putsch of October 1917 didn’t enjoy support among population of Bessarabia
- Igor Boțan: We are witnessing third stage of dismemberment of Soviet Union
- Marin Gherman: Communism was a catastrophe for previous century
- USSR: Born and Destroyed by Putsches. IPN debate
- Stalinization and de-Stalinization of Moldovan society. IPN debate
- Ludmila Cojocaru: Keeping memory of Stalinist crimes necessitates effort from state and society
- Igor Boțan: After Stalin’s death, Stalinization is only a kind of phantom
- Florin Abraham: Historical memory cannot be built without state support
- Igor Boțan: Stalinist elites devour each other, this being an essential quality of Stalinism
- Octavian Țîcu: Stalinization – imbedding of a series of features typical of Soviet Union
- Stalinization and de-Stalinization in European context. IPN debate
- Florin-Răzvan Mihai: Putinism poses a big threat
- Ion Manole: Passivity of international community to crimes of communism generated Ukraine war
- Kakhovka Dam: Why are laws and customs of war powerless? IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Possession of nuclear weapon makes Russia ignore international law norms
- Anatol Petrencu: Some nations fight without scruple
- Igor Boțan: Those who took part in deportation of people from Bessarabia were ideologically indoctrinated
- Viorica Olaru: The Kremlin administration is similar to the KGB
- “Stalinist deportations: echo of the past, for present and future”. IPN debate
- Alexandru Postica: Deportations should be treated in a broader context
- Mihail Druță: It is justified to celebrate Europe Day on May 9
- Anatol Țăranu: Moldova cannot become European state by keeping Soviet symbols
- Igor Boțan: It is a big mistake to reveal World War II events that suit only a particular side
- Victory Day: between reconciliation, antagonization and destabilization? IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Acknowledging organized famine is important for learning lessons
- Museographer of Avdarma: 800 people died from hunger in this village in 1946-1947
- Famine of 1946-1947. Vasile Șoimaru: People were dispossessed of everything and were murdered
- Lidia Pădureac: While Moldovan SSR was dying from starvation, Soviet Union was exporting grain
- Organized famine of 1946-1947: victims, murderers, memory. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Fascism, in its milder version, and Bolshevism were heresies of socialism
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Society should be attentive so as not to allow authoritarian-totalitarian deviations
- Alexandru Cosmescu: Fascism, Stalinism and Nazism created external enemies in order to achieve their goals
- What do Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism have in common? IPN debate
- Alecu Reniță on 1903 pogrom: Authorities failed to stop bloodshed
- Pogrom of 1903: executioners, victims and lessons. IPN debate
- Andrei Kushko: Not Moldovans, but imperial functionaries triggered Chisinau program
- Igor Boțan: Chisinau program was an outburst of anti-Semitism in Russian Empire
- Igor Boțan: Accession to EU is alternative to Russian world for Moldova
- Ion Negrei: Moldova should connect to European space for good
- Anatol Țăranu: There are affinities between aggressive policy of Russian empire and current regime of Putin
- Fate of peripheries of empires. Quo vadis, Moldova? IPN debate
- Mihai Țurcanu: “Stockholm syndrome” replaced feeling of national identity in many compatriots
- Igor Boțan: Putin’s drama is that he does not have ideology or economic force or army
- Maria Pilchin: Putin teaches his people to die because he was unable to teach them to live
- What did we celebrate and why did we celebrate on February 23? IPN debate