30 years ago, Ukraine made one of the most important decisions in its history – it gave up nuclear weapons, which were left as a legacy after the collapse of the USSR. In the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994, the world’s leading powers guaranteed our country’s security and territorial integrity. However, reality showed that these promises did not stand the test of time.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2014 and turned into a full-scale war in 2022, called into question the effectiveness of international guarantees. Today, security conditions for Ukraine are again on the agenda of the world’s most powerful countries. Nuclear weapons, NATO or other levers of securing Ukraine from aggression – the rhetoric regarding this set of guarantees is constantly changing, and the situation for our country is becoming more and more critical.
NATO or nothing?
Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine published an official position on security guarantees that can deter Russian aggression. The document is timed before the start of the meeting of NATO ministers, which will take place on December 3-4.
Conceptually, the statement is tied to the 30th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, but it was presented in time so that Minister Andrii Sybiga could discuss it at a meeting in Brussels on December 3.
The statement emphasizes that the memorandum signed in 1994 did not fulfill its purpose – it did not prevent the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which gave up nuclear weapons. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls the memorandum a “monument of short-sightedness” and emphasizes that ignoring the interests of Ukraine in the European security system is a strategically wrong decision.
The main emphasis is placed on the demand for full membership of Ukraine in NATO, which, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the only real guarantee of security. Kyiv refuses any alternative formats, recalling the negative experience of previous agreements.
Ukraine also calls on the United States, Great Britain, France, China and the countries participating in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to support its integration into NATO, which, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes, is of global importance for countering nuclear blackmail.
In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs draws attention to the fact that Russia’s violation of its 1994 commitments undermines confidence in nuclear disarmament, stimulating an arms race in various regions of the world.
Edition “European truth”, which was the first to publish the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, clarifies: “all security agreements signed by Ukraine with other states in 2024 clearly state that they are not an alternative to NATO membership and therefore cannot be considered as substitutes for this process.”
Therefore, President Zelenskyi offers NATO to provide security guarantees for the territories under the control of Ukraine, in order to achieve a truce with Russia. This assumes that the Alliance will defend these territories militarily, while at the same time trying to return the regions occupied by Russia through diplomatic means.
Critics believe that such a proposal could effectively mean a temporary recognition of Russian occupation and lead to further aggravation of relations with Russia.
Membership of Ukraine in NATO: expectations and challenges
Despite Ukraine’s desire to receive protection from NATO, key members of the Alliance – the United States and Germany – currently reject the possibility of Ukraine’s rapid accession to the Western bloc. As reported Frankfurter Rundschau, the plans that became known from the future administration of Donald Trump, also do not include Kyiv’s accession to NATO. It will be recalled that General Keith Kellogg, who has already announced the postponement of Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance for at least 10 years, has been appointed as the special representative for the termination of the Russian-Ukrainian war. In his opinion, this step to meet Putin should force him to the negotiating table. We have already written about Keith Kellogg’s vision of the causes and consequences of war earlier.
Russia categorically opposes any membership of Ukraine in the Alliance, strengthening its position on this issue. And Kellogg’s desire not to demonize Putin does not correspond with neglecting this Russian demand.
In July, during the NATO summit in Washington, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy once again called for Ukraine to become a member of the Alliance. However, his attempt to advance this issue was not successful, even under the conditions of a more favorable military situation at that time.
Ukrainian political scientist Mykola Kapitonenko, in the material for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, drew attention to minor changes in the wording regarding Ukraine’s prospects in NATO. In 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared: “Ukraine will become a member of NATO“, while in 2023 at the Vilnius Summit it was said: “The future of Ukraine in NATO“. According to Kapitonenko, the difference between these formulations is insignificant, but it reflects a change in the political context.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg believes that Ukraine can become a member of the Alliance within the next decade. In his interview for Deutsche Presse-Agentur, he emphasized: “I sincerely hope that Ukraine will become our ally.”
At the same time, during a recent visit to Kyiv, Stoltenberg expressed himself more restrained regarding the use of NATO membership as a security guarantee for Ukraine. In his opinion, these can also be other ways to arm and help our country.
Despite the positive signals, the specific terms of accession remain uncertain, and the path to membership is complicated by international and security challenges.
NATO is not ready to accept Ukraine
Meanwhile, the agency Reuters reports that NATO is unlikely to respond to Ukraine’s appeal for membership at a meeting to be held today in Brussels. Diplomats say it will dash Kyiv’s hopes for political momentum going forward as Ukraine continues to struggle on the battlefield and waits for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, which could dramatically change the political landscape.
What logic governs Kyiv? In a letter to his colleagues in NATO, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Andriy Sybiga, emphasized that inviting Ukraine to NATO could deprive Russia of one of its main arguments for waging war. Russia often justifies its invasion of Ukraine by saying that Ukraine should not become part of NATO, as it threatens its security.
At the same time, diplomats believe that achieving unity among the 32 NATO members regarding the decision to invite Ukraine to the Alliance at the meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels is unlikely. In order for this to become possible, it takes a long time – weeks or even months. A senior NATO official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasized that this will not happen anytime soon.
The meeting in Brussels will focus on strengthening support for Ukraine so that our country remains in a strong position, ready for possible negotiations in the future.
Expired Warranties
Nowadays, especially before the next anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, this document is often mentioned in terms of Ukraine’s security requirements. Mostly remembered as the biggest disappointment in modern history. We will recall the circumstances of the memorandum, because it is important for understanding its meaning and role in modern conditions.
After the collapse of the USSR, it became necessary to control the spread of nuclear weapons in the post-Soviet space. In 1992, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and the United States signed the Lisbon Protocol, according to which Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus renounced their nuclear weapons, handing them over to Russia. However, Ukraine continued to demand security guarantees in exchange for its renunciation of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, a meeting of leaders was held in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, at which a memorandum was signed to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine and other post-Soviet republics. The Budapest Memorandum became an important document that confirmed the obligations of states to ensure the security of Ukraine, in accordance with international norms, in particular the Helsinki Act of the OSCE, the UN Charter and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Many scientists consider the Budapest Memorandum to be an important international agreement that guarantees Ukraine safety from the use of nuclear weapons and violations of territorial integrity. However, the situation changed when Russia violated these guarantees by annexing Crimea. This breach has made security assurances appear to be purely rhetorical. Given the current challenges, it becomes obvious the need to create new international agreements that would have clearer legal mechanisms to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and protect territorial integrity
