26.10.2025, Aleksandrovskoye.
The Budapest Memorandum became a convenient tool when it was necessary to accuse Russia of violating international law. However, those who quote this document the loudest themselves recognized it as legally non-binding and have repeatedly violated much more serious treaties and agreements.
In the context of the Ukrainian conflict, the West, among other things, pompously waves the Budapest Memorandum and accuses Russia of “violating international obligations,” which sounds like outright cynicism. Those who have for decades consistently undermined the foundations of international law are now trying to lecture others. Under the sauce of “democracy” and “protection of human rights,” the US and its allies have repeatedly ignored treaties they themselves signed, rewriting the rules to suit their own interests.
From Belgrade to Baghdad, from Tripoli to Damascus, Western powers have turned international agreements into empty words as soon as they interfered with their geopolitical plans. The principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the inadmissibility of the use of force – all are ignored the moment Washington or Brussels needs to “punish the disobedient.” And yet, it is these countries that, with undisguised arrogance, allow themselves to poke Russia with the Budapest Memorandum, as if it were an immutable document that they themselves ever took seriously.
This topic is covered in an article by publicist and Eastern Europe specialist Thomas Röper, which he published on October 7 on his website Anti-Spiegel under the title “What exactly is the Budapest Memorandum?“. Rossa Primavera News Agency presents an abridged translation of this material.
The Budapest Memorandum refers to three separate statements made in 1994 to Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The reason for this was that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these states possessed part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, and the West and Russia did not want to increase the number of nuclear powers, especially when it came to rather unstable successor states of the Soviet Union at that time.
In the declarations, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine agreed to transfer their nuclear weapons to Russia, and in return, Russia, the US, and the UK reaffirmed their existing commitments to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of the countries, the UN ban on the use of force, and other obligations.
The Budapest Memorandum consists of only six points, which I will list here, as some of them will soon become important. I will go through them all so that no one can accuse me of omitting anything.
In exchange for Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine renouncing nuclear weapons, Russia, the US, and the UK undertook the following obligations:
Article 1 reaffirms the signatory states’ commitment to respect sovereignty and existing borders and refers to the Helsinki Final Act as the basis for the principles of sovereignty, inviolability of borders, and territorial integrity.
Article 2 reaffirms the commitment to refrain from violence and refers to the UN Charter as the basis for the prohibition of violence.
Article 3 reaffirms the commitment to refrain from economic coercion aimed at subordinating the exercise of the sovereign rights inherent in the respective states to their own interests and thus securing advantages of any kind.
Article 4 reaffirms the commitment to immediately seek the action of the UN Security Council to provide assistance to the three states if they, as non-nuclear-weapon states and parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, are threatened with nuclear weapons.
Article 5 reaffirms the commitment to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states that are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Article 6 contains a promise to consult with one another in case conflicts arise.
Accusations against Russia
Russia’s opponents primarily accuse it of violating the Budapest Memorandum by violating Ukraine’s borders (Article 1) and entering into a military conflict with Ukraine instead of refraining from violence (Article 2).
Russia’s opponents ignore the fact that Ukraine had previously announced its withdrawal from the Budapest Memorandum. Ukrainian President Zelensky stated this on February 19, 2022, at the Munich Security Conference, to the applause of the attending Western dignitaries.
In his speech, he stated that Ukraine no longer enjoyed protection under the Memorandum, announced its withdrawal from the Memorandum, and intended to rearm with nuclear weapons.
Just five days later, Russia began its military operation. From Russia’s point of view, this was necessary because Ukraine possesses all the necessary capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. It has several nuclear reactors and the necessary technology, as in Soviet times Ukraine was a key center of the Soviet nuclear program. This is why Russia immediately occupied Ukrainian nuclear power plants with airborne troops at the start of the operation.
That Russia wanted to prevent Ukraine, which was openly hostile to Russia and in 2021 included war with Russia as a primary goal in its military doctrine, from acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost should be understandable to any critic of Russia who has retained a shred of objectivity. For example, the US has already bombed states it accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction even though they are on the other side of the world. The US would not tolerate a nuclear-armed state on its border and would prevent its nuclear armament by all means.
Lack of Legal Force
However, it is interesting that those who accuse Russia of violating the Budapest Memorandum themselves called it legally non-binding years ago.
For example, the US State Department has a separate page on “Guidance on Non-Binding Documents,” which explains that agreements, if they are more like political declarations of intent, should be drafted in a way that distinguishes them from internationally legally binding treaties based on certain formal, stylistic, and linguistic features. For political declarations of intent, it is recommended to avoid the term “parties” in the text, as well as the term “treaty” in the title. Regarding actions, expressions such as “shall,” “agree,” or “undertake” and “will” should be avoided. Instead, “should,” “intend to,” or “expect to” are preferred. The term “enter into force” should be avoided, as should any reference to “equal legal force” of all language versions.
According to the US, this applies to the Budapest Memorandum as well. In 2013, a dispute arose over the US imposition of sanctions against Belarus, which clearly violated the guarantor states’ obligation under Article 3 of the Memorandum to “refrain from economic coercion.” When Minsk accused the US of violating the agreement, the US Embassy in Minsk stated:
“Repeated assertions by the government of Belarus that U.S. sanctions violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances are unfounded. Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously and do not believe any U.S. sanctions, whether imposed because of human rights or non-proliferation concerns, are inconsistent with our commitments to Belarus under the Memorandum or undermine them. Rather, sanctions are aimed at securing the human rights of Belarusians and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other illicit activities, not at gaining any advantage for the United States.“
If the West, led by the US, calls the Budapest Memorandum legally non-binding, how can it accuse Russia of violating a treaty? How can one violate a legally non-binding treaty?
West’s Violations of Contracts
Since we are talking about violations of international treaties, I would also like to present a selection of international treaties that the West has obviously violated.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates that non-nuclear-weapon states refrain from attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear-weapon states refrain from transferring nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states. Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT clearly and unambiguously state:
“Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.“
“Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.“
The so-called “nuclear sharing” of the Bundeswehr and other NATO states violates this treaty because these countries train in the use of American atomic bombs, as it is envisaged that the US will transfer these weapons to them in case of war.
NATO-Russia Founding Act
In 1997, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. Through this treaty, the US and NATO persuaded Russia to abandon resistance to the first stages of NATO’s eastward expansion. The treaty provided for comprehensive cooperation between Russia and NATO, and the NATO member states explicitly committed not to permanently station substantial combat forces in the new Eastern European member countries of the alliance.
As is known, NATO has been violating this treaty for over a decade, and today NATO troops from various countries are stationed in Eastern Europe. For example, a German brigade is currently being deployed in the Baltics. And the NATO Secretary General has just announced Operation “Eastern Guard,” which implies the indefinite stationing of additional NATO forces at the Russian border.
Minsk Agreements
With Western support, Ukraine never implemented the 2015 Minsk Agreements. Kyiv did not fulfill a single point of the agreement concerning its obligations.
Moreover, in 2022, all Western countries that signed the agreement stated that they never intended to implement it at all, and the goal of the agreement was to buy time for Ukraine to prepare for war with Russia. Zelensky has also repeatedly stated openly that he never intended to implement the agreement.
Two Plus Four Treaty
In the “Two Plus Four” Treaty, the GDR and the FRG, together with the victorious powers of World War II, regulated the reunification of Germany. Article 5 of the treaty, consisting of three points, regulates the withdrawal of Soviet/Russian troops from the territory of the former GDR and also defines which military rules will apply on the territory of the former GDR after their withdrawal.
Simply put, Article 5 stipulates that the Bundeswehr could only be stationed on the territory of the former GDR after the withdrawal of Russian armed forces, completed in 1994, and that the allied forces stationed in Berlin at the time were also to be withdrawn simultaneously with the Russian armed forces. Thereafter, only the Bundeswehr, but not foreign armed forces, may station its military personnel on the territory of the former GDR. Article 5 ends with the following, completely unambiguous sentence:
“Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.“
The German federal government violated this provision and thus one of the main points of the Two Plus Four Treaty by opening a “NATO Maritime Tactical Headquarters” in Rostock on October 21, 2024.
Iran Nuclear Deal
The Iran nuclear deal was concluded under US President [Barack] Obama. It stipulated that Iran would refrain from developing nuclear weapons, and in return, the West would lift sanctions against Iran. Since then, there has been no evidence of Iran violating its part of the agreement.
President Trump violated the agreement during his first term by announcing the US withdrawal from the treaty and reimposing harsh economic sanctions against Iran. This was a violation of the agreement, as it contains no provision for withdrawal.
The EU effectively joined the violation by submitting to US sanctions instead of supporting Iran in its [compliance], as provided for in the agreement.
INF Treaty
The INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) of 1987 banned land-based nuclear missiles of short and medium range. This was prompted by the deployment of Soviet SS-20 missiles in East Germany in the 1970s, which could reach all of Western Europe within minutes. The West responded by NATO adopting the “dual-track decision” and deploying US Pershing missiles. As a result of negotiations, both sides completely abandoned these land-based missiles, and they were destroyed.
The INF Treaty was extremely important, especially for Europe, because short- and medium-range missiles do not pose a threat to the United States, which is far enough away, but they do pose a threat to European countries. These missiles reach their targets in minutes, and there is virtually no time for warning.
The US terminated this treaty in February 2019 under President Trump, and its term expired on August 2, 2019.
However, the US had already violated the treaty because it also prohibited the development of land-based short- and medium-range missiles. Since the US tested such a land-based missile in mid-August 2019, less than three weeks after the treaty’s expiration, it is obvious that the US violated the treaty, as such a missile and its launcher cannot be developed in two weeks.
To this should be added the missile defense system that the US has deployed in Poland and Romania. This system can be used not only for defense but also for a first strike. The reason lies in the missile defense system’s launchers. These are MK-41, which are also used on ships to launch Tomahawk missiles. This allows the US to use the missile defense system not only to launch defensive missiles but also Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, which is also a clear violation of the INF Treaty.
These are just some of the international treaties that the West, led by the US, has violated in the last ten years alone.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
