- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1994 Budapest Memorandum Ukraine gives up it's Nukes in exchange for security assurances.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 5:52 am
Posted on 3/2/25 at 5:52 am
Ukraine became the third-largest nuclear power after the Soviet Union's dissolution but voluntarily gave up its arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. So in a way I do understand Ukraine's plight, in that US, Brits, and Russia have not lived up to their security assurances. Just as Taiwan's security is tied to US going to war with China to secure an independent Taiwan. This is an unanswered question as well.
17
Posted on 3/2/25 at 5:54 am to TigerPlate
So Bill Clinton is the president who actually screwed Ukraine. 
Posted on 3/2/25 at 5:58 am to TigerPlate
“Memorandum”.
Oh brother…
Oh brother…
Posted on 3/2/25 at 5:58 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
Lost their nukes under Clinton
Lost Crimea under Obama
Lost the Donbas under Biden
I see a pattern.
Lost Crimea under Obama
Lost the Donbas under Biden
I see a pattern.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:05 am to TigerPlate
The USSR’s nuclear power was ceded to Russia. While Ukraine possessed the nukes they by no means had influence over the weapons’ strategic use. In a similar way Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming possess our nukes but have very little influence over their utilization.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:06 am to TigerPlate
Another way of looking at it is this:
Ukraine wasn’t giving up “it’s nukes”
It was returning Russia nukes.
Those weapons were developed and made by Russia. They were in Ukraine strategically pre Fall of Soviet Union.
Russia was never going to give Ukraine half its Nuclear arsenal.
Summary: Ukraine didn’t develop the world’s 3rd largest nuclear stockpile and decide to give it up out of the goodness of its heart.
Ukraine wasn’t giving up “it’s nukes”
It was returning Russia nukes.
Those weapons were developed and made by Russia. They were in Ukraine strategically pre Fall of Soviet Union.
Russia was never going to give Ukraine half its Nuclear arsenal.
Summary: Ukraine didn’t develop the world’s 3rd largest nuclear stockpile and decide to give it up out of the goodness of its heart.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:10 am to TigerPlate
Here’s another great question. Why did NATO and DC renege on a promise not to expand into Eastern Europe.
Why did they deploy interceptors in Poland and Romania and lie about their purpose. Iran? Yea, right.
Why did they deploy interceptors in Poland and Romania and lie about their purpose. Iran? Yea, right.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 6:11 am
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:26 am to BluegrassCardinal
There was no formal agreement not to expand…as much as we wish there was.
I think one of our forefathers mentioned something about “…entangling alliances”
I think one of our forefathers mentioned something about “…entangling alliances”
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:29 am to TigerPlate
Don't forget that the man who showers with his 14 year old daughter essentially green lighted Russia's invasion by making his bone headed, off hand "minor incursion" comment in January 2022. Green lighted is worst case but even in the best case he sent conflicting signals in a high stakes situation.
Very poor leadership but I wasn't surprised, I'm from Delaware and know about this guy and his family not to mention friends.
Furthermore, all of Russian invasions of Ukraine occurred during demoncrat administrations starting with President transformer B. Hussein O.
Unless there is a coup in Russia, Ukraine isn't getting anything back and there's little to no more the West can do to force them to do so.
Putin played sleepy joe and the West in the run up to their invasion.
I don't like this but it's the bitter truth.
Very poor leadership but I wasn't surprised, I'm from Delaware and know about this guy and his family not to mention friends.
Furthermore, all of Russian invasions of Ukraine occurred during demoncrat administrations starting with President transformer B. Hussein O.
Unless there is a coup in Russia, Ukraine isn't getting anything back and there's little to no more the West can do to force them to do so.
Putin played sleepy joe and the West in the run up to their invasion.
I don't like this but it's the bitter truth.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 6:39 am to Jimmy Russel
quote:
There was no formal agreement not to expand…as much as we wish there was.
I know Baker said it very clearly in front of a world summit or Congressional hearing
USSR break up included a lot of agreements...with our goverment
since then, NATO has added about 18 nations
Russia has even asked at least 2 times if they could be members and we have said politely "that would defeat the purpose of our war machine, I mean NATO"
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:42 am to ApexTiger
Grok summary:
Twitter Link
quote:
There’s no evidence of a formal, binding agreement between the U.S. and Russia specifically prohibiting NATO’s eastward expansion. However, this topic has been a point of contention and debate, rooted in discussions from the early 1990s during the collapse of the Soviet Union and German reunification. The closest thing often cited is a verbal exchange in February 1990 between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Baker reportedly said, “not one inch eastward” regarding NATO expansion, in the context of reassuring Gorbachev about NATO’s intentions if Germany reunified and remained in NATO. This was part of negotiations over German reunification, not a broader promise about Eastern Europe. Gorbachev later confirmed that NATO expansion wasn’t explicitly discussed beyond Germany at that time, and no formal treaty or written agreement emerged from these talks. Declassified documents—like those from the National Security Archive—show these conversations were informal, context-specific, and lacked legal weight. Western leaders, including Baker, later clarified that the remarks were about East Germany, not a perpetual commitment. Meanwhile, Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, have claimed this was a broken “promise,” framing NATO’s post-1991 expansion as a betrayal. NATO began expanding eastward in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, followed by more countries in the 2000s, including the Baltic states. No treaty or document from the U.S. or NATO explicitly barred this. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act aimed to ease tensions by fostering cooperation, but it didn’t restrict NATO’s enlargement either. So, no formal agreement existed—just ambiguous verbal assurances open to interpretation. The disagreement lives on as a geopolitical sore point.
Twitter Link
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:46 am to TigerPlate
Those nukes were soviet, NOT Ukrainian, they were given back to their owners.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:03 am to TigerPlate
This was in conjunction with a promise not to expand NATO. Then in 1997 we pushed into Poland etc….Basically that action make this memorandum that isn’t ratified by Congress null and void. Then throw in 2008 when Bush Jr announce our intention to add Ukraine and Georgia, Obama/Clinton using the CIA/USAID to over throw the democratically elected (yet corrupt) President of Ukraine.
We need to rethink hiring/promoting Foreign Service Officers from the incestual hotbed Ivy Leagues. Those “universities” is a rabble of soy boys sucking each others cocks. Bolstering any theory that is the antithesis of common sense.
We need to rethink hiring/promoting Foreign Service Officers from the incestual hotbed Ivy Leagues. Those “universities” is a rabble of soy boys sucking each others cocks. Bolstering any theory that is the antithesis of common sense.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:17 am to Jimmy Russel
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:48 pm to Rebel
Yet it’s all Trump’s fault. 
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:50 pm to TigerPlate
quote:absolutely. But it's time for peace not more war.
I do understand Ukraine's plight
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:52 pm to TigerPlate
Ukraine had physical weapons that were not under their control and which Ukraine alone could never have used.
This wasn’t a South Africa situation. Neither Ukraine nor Kazakhstan had the capability to use what was located on their territory.
This wasn’t a South Africa situation. Neither Ukraine nor Kazakhstan had the capability to use what was located on their territory.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:55 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Then in 1997 we pushed into Poland etc
In 1999* the Poles Czechs Hungarians and Romanians asked to be members and were admitted.
NATO does not expand or push. It accepts applications.
For the record, Poland is probably the most committed nation in NATO other than the United States. They are fantastic allies and have fully committed to defending themselves if required. The central and Eastern Europeans are not the problem in NATO. It’s the French, Germans, Dutch, British etc that have let their capabilities deteriorate to nothing.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 1:12 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Oh, ok.
NATO does not expand or push. It accepts applications.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 1:18 pm to cattus
quote:
Oh, ok.
You disagree? Feel free to explain.
Are you implying that the entire Warsaw Pact sans Belarus begged to get in as soon as they were eligible because Brussels forced them to?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News