[_djo_]

20 years, not 30, and not even that. There were other clashes plus massive Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs just a few years after Budapest.

For something as serious as giving up a nuclear arsenal it’s reasonable to expect to get more than 20 years of peace and for the co-signers to actual fulfil their parts of the agreement, whether legally binding or not.

The end result is that no country will soon trust a Russian non-aggression promise and none will trust an American promise of support.

[VWWHFSfQ]

It was signed in 1994? That's 30 years. I guess you're counting Crimea? I was think just starting from the full Russian invasion.

[_djo_]

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014. That’s 20 years later.

It is also widely believed to have had a hand in the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin in 2004, in order to give an edge to his pro-Russian opponent, Viktor Yanukovych.

But even if that’s not true there’s ample evidence of overt Russian influence campaigns to support Yanukovych in that election, which was just 10 years after the Budapest Memorandum.

[_djo_]

There was no such promise. Everyone who was actually in the room during those talks, including Premier Gorbachev, has denied it.

Nor was Ukraine anywhere close to joining NATO. It’s application had effectively been frozen in 2008, and it was not even being offered a MAP which is about step 1 on a 20 step ladder of actions to take before joining.

It’s a red herring being used to justify Russia’s territorial and imperial ambitions.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...