Senator Marco Rubio has once again brought attention to a critical but often overlooked historical fact: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia promised to safeguard Ukraine’s security in exchange for its nuclear disarmament. This agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum, was signed in 1994 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In doing so, Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, trusting that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be protected.
Following the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, Ukraine inherited nearly 1,900 nuclear warheads, strategic bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—a nuclear capability larger than those of China, the U.K., and France combined. However, under Western pressure, Ukraine agreed to disarm in return for security assurances from the U.S., the U.K., and Russia. The memorandum explicitly stated that Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders would be respected and that none of the signatory nations would use force or coercion against it.
Yet, in 2014, Vladimir Putin violated this agreement by annexing Crimea, and in 2022, he launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Despite receiving military aid, Ukraine has been left to fight alone on the battlefield, raising serious doubts about America’s commitment to its own security promises.
Rubio’s explanation sheds light on a growing hypocrisy: many critics, including figures like Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Elon Musk, are quick to attack Volodymyr Zelenskyy for seeking security assurances but refuse to hold Putin accountable for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty.
For those who are angry at Zelenskyy for asking Trump about the U.S. security guarantee before signing the mineral rights deal, a deeper understanding of history is necessary. They should research how Putin has consistently broken international agreements and how Ukraine has been unfairly portrayed as the villain, while Putin is seen as the “strong leader” simply reclaiming what is his. The reality is that Zelenskyy is fighting for his country’s survival, while Putin is the actual aggressor, having invaded a sovereign nation for no justifiable reason.
More Read
Rubio’s remarks raise a critical question: If the U.S. does not uphold its commitment to Ukraine, how can any other nation trust American security guarantees? The failure to enforce the Budapest Memorandum has already sent a dangerous message to countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Iran, potentially pushing them toward developing their own nuclear deterrents rather than relying on Western assurances.As Trump’s administration continues to shift blame onto Ukraine while avoiding any direct criticism of Putin, one must ask: What exactly are they afraid of? Is it fear of Putin’s retaliation, or is it sympathy for his authoritarian style of governance? The answer to this question may determine not only the fate of Ukraine but also the future of America’s global leadership.
