And Everyone Knew It At The Time

The agreement to defend Ukraine's borders if they gave up their nukes was meaningless when they wrote it up.

The president of Ukraine was Moscow's buddy and they were really looking for assurances that NATO wasn't going to invade them and if they did, Russia would help stop the slavering western hordes.

NATO knew they weren't going to invade because NATO doesn't do that.

Russia knew they weren't going to invade because they had an agreeable government in place in Kiev.

That Ukraine would become pro-West and anti-Russia was never contemplated.

Russia invading wasn't on anyone's bingo card in 1994.

It was a big, meaningless media event calculated to make Bill Clinton and the UK leadership look good in the press at the time.  "Look!  We're bringing peace forever by reducing the number of nukes out there."

Actually it was good, those nukes were aimed at the West at the time too.

The Budapst Memorandum is doubly meaningless because the actions required of the signatories are minimal.

All it really says is Ukraine's borders will be treated in accordance with the Helsinki accords.

You know the non-binding Helsinki Accords?

So if you're on your high horse saying we betrayed Ukraine, remember that doing nothing is allowed under the Helsinki Accords.

But I was around and blogging in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine the first time.  Ukraine didn't give Crimea to Russia.  Russia took it by force of arms.

Where were you Uke boys then?  I heard nothing for 8 years.  Obama certainly didn't send troops or arms.

Well, if you read the Budapest Memorandum and Helsinki Accords, we're supposed to head to the UN and hammer it out there.

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

We sure made some sternly phrased resolutions.  That we did!  Just like the non-binding-never-ratified memorandum says we should.

Read that part again.

NEVER RATIFIED! 

Without ratification we're not obligated to do fuck all.

For 20 years everyone acted like we'd ratified it, but we hadn't.

It's like going to court for a crime that congress passed but the president didn't sign.  It's not a law, so your behavior wasn't illegal.

So, for the "nobody is ever going to trust us again" crowd; you've been complaining for three years about something that wasn't ratified for 30.  Where were you then?

I know where I was.  I was thinking it was pretty slick of Willy to have gotten those nukes away from a pro-Russian state without giving them anything in return.  And I hate that fucker.  THAT was our national interest and national interest goal achieved without any losses.

I think a lot of people need to learn how things really work out there before they go a ranting about betrayal.