Sure. Here is the background info.
When the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991, all the former Soviet satellites became owners of many Soviet weapons. Ukraine had reportedly 1700 nuclear warheads in various deployment methods, from missiles to bombs. This stockpile was 3rd largest in the world. Russia could not retrieve all of them because the country was in chaos, the Russian military was in disarray, its leadership fractured, and the ranks demoralized. Nevertheless, at least at the business level, Russia was the legal owner of that nuclear stockpile.
Could Ukraine defend its physical ownership of that nuclear stockpile and maintain it? Possibly, but essentially, Ukraine could have at least dismantle every delivery platform, separate the warhead components, and be a nuclear weapons state
TO THIS DAY, like the entire UN Security Council. Even if a nuclear warhead must be transported by car to a location and detonate by hand by a suicide bomber, no member of the UN Security Council want that club expanded. So a deal was made in 1994: The Budapest Agreement.
The signatories were the US, the UK, and Russia. US/UK experts would help and verify the dismantling of the nuclear stockpile, then Russia would retrieve the fissile materials. In return, the three powers would...
...respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
...reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
...to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
The problem here is that the Budapest Agreement was not legally binding. It was the nation-state equivalent of a "gentleman's handshake" promise. Even so, Ukraine agreed and gave up that nuclear stockpile. There was nothing in the Budapest Agreement about Ukraine not joining NATO and/or neutrality status. The primary concern was that nuclear stockpile.
Let us scale that down as a mental exercise. I challenge you to examine your personal life and see if there were any situation, with a relative or a friend or a business partner, where you would give up something permanently based on a
NON-LEGAL document, and because it was non-legal the other party can change his mind on a whim and there would be nothing you can do about that change. Am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you would find one situation where you refused to sign or even gave a nod.
Except that Ukraine gave up 1700 times for one
NON-LEGAL agreement. Think about that for a moment. Each nuclear warhead is a
PERMANENT security assurance. As long as you have it, the odds of anyone messing with you is dramatically reduced. Look at Iran or NKR for examples of that fear. Ukraine gave up 1700 security assurances just because Russia made a vague promise not to attack in the future. Even though there were the US and the UK in that agreement, everyone knew the real threat to Ukraine was Russia. Ukraine believed that given the historical ties between the two countries,
PERHAPS there would be peace between the two countries, so Ukraine gave up 1700 security assurances based on a
NON-LEGAL document.
The Budapest Agreement of 1994 is being re-release to the global public. Once everyone thought thru the process I described above, NATO expansion arguments will be moot. Russia's treachery will be confirmed.
