Kuchma Explains Why Refusing The Budapest Memorandum Wouldn’t Have Saved Ukraine From War
Former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma stated that the strategic nuclear weapons remaining on Ukrainian territory in 1994 could not have provided effective nuclear deterrence. Kuchma said this in an interview with Ukrinform. "The nuclear weapons that remained in Ukraine in 1994 not only couldn't have strengthened our security, but actually created danger for us. In 1994, Ukraine's nuclear…
Former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma explained in an interview with Ukrinform that Ukraine's remaining strategic nuclear weapons in 1994 would not have provided effective nuclear deterrence. These weapons, which included missiles with a range of 4,000-5,000 kilometers, were under Russia's control, necessitating Russian command for use. Kuchma emphasized that Ukraine lacked the expertise and experience to maintain these weapons, with some nearing the end of their warranty period.
The strongest pressure for Ukraine to sign the Budapest Memorandum came from the United States, as they aimed to remove Ukraine's strategic nuclear weapons deployed on Ukrainian territory, which were targeted at the US. However, Kuchma argued that what could have saved Ukraine was the tactical nuclear weapons Ukraine surrendered in 1992.
These were removed from Ukraine in 1992 after a 1992 agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the destruction of tactical nuclear munitions. Ukraine had approximately 3,000 tactical nuclear warheads, which could have potentially defended against Russia during the country's early independence period.
Written by urgent.news from UATV English's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
