My country, Ukraine, has a proposal for the west – and it could make the whole world safer
In November 1994, Boris Yeltsin wrote to his counterpart, Bill Clinton. The Russian president urged the US and the west to support a “historic Russian-Ukrainian treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership”.
At the time, Yeltsin had forged a close working relationship with Ukraine’s president, Leonid Kuchma. The Russian leader spoke of his desire to “seal a really milestone document” covering “all the concerns of Ukraine, which is fraternal to us”.
Clinton also had reasons for seeking a deal with Kuchma. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, nuclear weapons were scattered throughout the post-Soviet states, with a significant amount in Ukraine. Eliminating this threat had become a huge priority for Washington.
A month after Yeltsin wrote to Clinton, the leaders assembled in Budapest, Hungary. In exchange for Ukraine giving up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, the US, Russia and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.
Tragically for Ukraine, the Budapest memorandum did not stand the test of time.
First, Kyiv had been outmanoeuvred by clever lawyers, who had insisted that the security pledges made to Ukraine should be downgraded from “guarantees” to “assurances”. The lesser meaning of this wording has haunted us ever since.
Second, the west had too much faith in Yeltsin’s ability to lead Russia down the path to liberal democracy. They forgot about the powerful former Soviet secret service chiefs, enraged by the collapse of their old empire, who hid in the shadows but close to the president.
Russia first violated the Budapest memorandum in 2003 when it threatened to seize the Ukrainian island of Tuzla in the sea of Azov by force. Then there was systematic blackmail over gas. And in 2014, Russian troops seized Crimea and entered eastern Ukraine. This bloody aggression then escalated into a full-scale military invasion earlier this year.
Russia knows something that many in the west have forgotten. A country wishing to preserve its sovereignty can only maintain stability if it retains the potential threat of force.
Many believe the west’s international rules-based system – now threatened by Russia – was born at the end of the first world war, with the policy of “self-determination”. At that time, the US president, Woodrow Wilson, announced that “national aspirations must be respected” and “people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent”, adding: “Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action.”
If the west truly believes in such principles, then it must surely support the democratically elected government of Ukraine with comprehensive security guarantees that replace the failed Budapest memorandum.
We are focused on fighting and winning the war, but we have already started the process of securing guarantees from our allies. We have established a high-level working group cochaired by myself and former Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Members include some of our closest friends, including William Hague, the former UK foreign secretary, Kevin Rudd, the former prime minister of Australia, and Carl Bildt, the former prime minister of Sweden.
Although Ukraine’s long-term goal remains Nato membership, we recognise that Russia’s current belligerence makes that difficult. In the meantime, however, we need legally binding guarantees by our allies for the provision of weapons, exchange of intelligence, the support of our defence and the protection of our economy.
We plan to present our recommendations to the global community in the near future. Some influential voices, even within our allies’ governments, still believe it is impossible to stand up to Russia. Their position can best be likened to that of a child confronted with a difficult challenge. Rather than closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming for the problem to go away, these people need to open their eyes and see Russia for what it is.
We know enough to be sure that there is no such peace agreement under which Russia would put its signature and keep its word. Given its actions in Syria, and its behaviour after the seizure of Crimea, it should be obvious that Moscow is using peace talks as a distraction and a trap, not as a solution. Russia violated the Minsk and Normandy agreements immediately after signing and, for eight years, has not fully fulfilled any of its commitments. To date, Russia has violated all basic norms and principles of international law. There is no shape or form that Ukraine can take as an independent nation with which Russia will ever be able to live. Ukrainians know this and that is why they continue to resist the aggressor. They continue their struggle for freedom.
If Ukraine falls, which country will be next? Faced with an aggressor, it is futile to hope for peace through calls for justice: you will get neither.
After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton wrote in his memoir that the ill-fated security conference in Budapest was “embarrassing, a rare moment when people on both sides dropped the ball”. Unfortunately, this is not quite the case. The Russian leadership did not drop the ball. It saw a new opportunity – and took full advantage of the weak memorandum for its own imperial ambitions.
Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. New guarantees for Ukraine must be strong and effective. The security of Ukraine will make the world safer.
Andriy Yermak is head of the Office of the Ukrainian Presidency