3 ms·

Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others

Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

ajross 3y ago
To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).
  - ajross 3y ago
    > However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. Yes. Or it could have resulted in Ukraine using the same weapons to blackmail its neighbors in the same way Russia is doing now. The point to the decision was risk management. There were zero "good" options for what to do with the USSR nuclear arsenal. But leaving it all under the unitary control of a giant established military bureaucracy that had managed not to blow up the world for 50 years seemed "less bad" than just handing them out like candy to all the follow-on bootstrapped governments.

ajross 3y ago

To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.

throw1234651234 3y ago
Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).
- ajross 3y ago
  > However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. Yes. Or it could have resulted in Ukraine using the same weapons to blackmail its neighbors in the same way Russia is doing now. The point to the decision was risk management. There were zero "good" options for what to do with the USSR nuclear arsenal. But leaving it all under the unitary control of a giant established military bureaucracy that had managed not to blow up the world for 50 years seemed "less bad" than just handing them out like candy to all the follow-on bootstrapped governments.