Escalation, Episode Two: No Guarantees

Summary

Summary of "Escalation, Episode Two: No Guarantees" – The Lawfare Podcast

Release Date: May 27, 2025

Introduction

In the second episode of the narrative podcast series Escalation, hosted by Tyler McBrien and Anastasia Lopatyna of The Lawfare Institute, listeners are taken on an insightful journey into the complex history of U.S.-Ukrainian relations. This episode delves into the pivotal moment when newly independent Ukraine inherited a substantial nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union, leading to high-stakes negotiations involving the United States and Russia.

Setting the Scene: A Protest at the White House [03:11 - 05:33]

The episode opens with a vivid depiction of a rainy September day in Washington D.C., where executive producer Max Johnston meets Ukrainian activist Maria Hlitin, known as Marichka, outside the White House. Marichka leads a small group of protesters carrying a 50-foot banner reading "Let Ukraine Strike Back." As they navigate the dense security, the tension underscores the growing frustration among Ukrainians over U.S. policy and support.

The Budapest Memorandum: Origins and Implications [06:19 - 12:02]

The core of the episode examines the Budapest Memorandum, a brief yet monumental agreement signed in the mid-1990s. Ukraine, upon gaining independence after the Soviet Union's collapse, was left with the third-largest nuclear arsenal globally, comprising approximately 900 nuclear warheads and over 2,000 tactical nukes. The United States, aiming to reduce global nuclear threats, negotiated with Ukraine and Russia to dismantle these weapons in exchange for security guarantees.

Maria Hlitin criticizes the memorandum, stating, “History is, you know, going like a circle, and the only thing we need to think of right now is we need to actually learn how to learn from history” (07:21). This sentiment reflects the disappointment felt by many Ukrainians who view the memorandum as a failed promise.

Challenges in Dismantling the Arsenal [12:02 - 17:53]

Despite the apparent benefits, the process of de-nuclearization was fraught with difficulties. Ukraine lacked the financial resources and infrastructure to maintain the nuclear weapons, and the command systems remained under Russian control. Boris Tarasyuk, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister’s deputy in the 90s, emphasized the mistrust developed during these negotiations: “First, do not believe Russians. Second, do not believe Russians. Third, do not believe Russians” (17:15).

Sarah Sievers, a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, provides a firsthand account of the chaos and mistrust during this period. She recalls rumors about loose nukes in Ukraine, highlighting the precariousness of the situation: “You could go to, like, bars in Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine, and, you know, there would be like, you want to buy a nuke, go to that bar, talk to this guy, and maybe you'll be lucky” (12:41).

The Breakdown of the Nuclear Deal: A Miscommunication [24:29 - 26:18]

A critical turning point in the memorandum’s history occurred due to a linguistic misunderstanding during negotiations. Steven Peifer, a key American diplomat, recounts the moment when the term “guarantee” was mistranslated, effectively undermining the agreement: “It turned out that both the Russians and the Ukrainians had translated the English word assurances into garanty in Russian and hot and tea in Ukrainian” (24:39). This mistranslation meant that while the Ukrainians sought legally binding guarantees to protect their sovereignty, the U.S. was only willing to offer non-binding assurances, leading to the collapse of the deal.

Aftermath and Long-Term Effects [27:43 - 35:53]

The episode explores the long-term ramifications of the failed memorandum. Ukrainian activist Marichka and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy frequently reference the Budapest Memorandum as a symbol of broken promises, particularly in light of Russia’s continued aggression, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2022. Zelenskyy remarks, “We have a formal obligation, a commitment the United States made to the Ukrainians that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, we would help them protect themselves” (33:46).

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Steven Peifer express deep regrets over the flawed agreement. Peifer states, “To the extent that we made a mistake, the mistake was in Washington and in Kyiv is that we did not foresee somebody like Vladimir Putin coming to power and what he did in 2014 and 2022” (34:42). This acknowledgment highlights the unforeseen challenges that have severely tested the credibility of the memorandum.

Ukrainian Discontent and Perception of Betrayal [36:14 - 37:18]

The sentiment of betrayal among Ukrainians is palpable. Sarah Sievers reflects, “Yes, it's a betrayal. We like to point out what we're doing for Ukraine, but look at what we're not doing that we could do” (36:39). This feeling is intensified by ongoing issues such as corruption within Ukraine’s government and the perceived inadequacy of international support in deterring Russian aggression.

Conclusion and Tease for Next Episode [37:18 - End]

The episode concludes by highlighting the enduring legacy of the Budapest Memorandum and its impact on current U.S.-Ukraine relations. As Ukraine faces renewed threats, the broken promises of the past continue to influence its strategic position and international alliances. The hosts hint at future explorations of Ukraine’s internal struggles with corruption and democracy, setting the stage for the next episode.

Notable Quotes with Attribution and Timestamps:

• Maria Hlitin (07:21): “History is, you know, going like a circle, and the only thing we need to think of right now is we need to actually learn how to learn from history.”

• Boris Tarasyuk (17:15): “First, do not believe Russians. Second, do not believe Russians. Third, do not believe Russians.”

• Steven Peifer (24:29): “And I said, this is a deal breaker for us.”

• Sarah Sievers (36:39): “Yes, it's a betrayal. We like to point out what we're doing for Ukraine, but look at what we're not doing that we could do.”

Analysis and Insights

This episode effectively underscores the complex interplay of trust, diplomacy, and strategic interests that have shaped U.S.-Ukrainian relations. The Budapest Memorandum serves as a cautionary tale of how linguistic nuances and political miscalculations can have profound and lasting consequences. The feelings of betrayal among Ukrainians highlight the critical importance of steadfast international commitments, especially in regions fraught with historical tensions and geopolitical rivalries.

Conclusion

Escalation, Episode Two: No Guarantees provides a nuanced exploration of the tumultuous history between the United States and Ukraine, centered around the pivotal Budapest Memorandum. Through detailed narratives and firsthand accounts, the episode illuminates the challenges and failures that have long-term implications for national security and international alliances. For those seeking to understand the roots of contemporary U.S.-Ukraine tensions and the enduring impact of past diplomatic efforts, this episode offers invaluable insights.

Transcript

[Unknown Announcer]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security Chatter, Lawfare no Bull and the Aftermath.

[Tyler McBrien]

It's the Lawfare podcast I'm Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare. This afternoon we're bringing you a little something extra on top of our daily Lawfare podcast episodes. We ran episode one of our narrative podcast series Escalation on this feed last month on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. For the next few weeks, we'll be posting the rest of the series starting today with episode two. Escalation is a multi part narrative podcast that I co hosted with Lawfare's Ukraine fellow Anastasia Lapatna. Throughout the series, Nastya and I trace the history of US Ukrainian relations from the time of Ukrainian independence all the way through the present. You can subscribe to the whole series as well as our other narrative series on our Lawfare Presents channel, wherever you get your podcasts. In episode two, newly independent Ukraine inherits a nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union. So the United States, Russia and Ukraine craft a high stakes deal to disarm Ukraine in exchange for national security protection. Some see it as a diplomatic success, but for others it's a betrayal. Here's Escalation, Episode two, no Guarantees.

[Unknown Announcer]

Escalation is presented by Deleteme, the industry leader in personal data removal. Deleteme is trusted by 20% of the Fortune 500 and by federal, state and county courts across the United States. For more information on Deleteme and its services for individuals and businesses, go to joindeleteme.com escalation.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Previously on Escalation.

[Tyler McBrien]

Bush Senior.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

I mean he's infamous for the so called Chicken Kiev speech. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far off tyranny with a local despotism. This world has a new country tonight. Ukraine. They looked at us as their colony, as somebody who was inferior to them. They've suddenly inherited nuclear we.

[Unknown Announcer]

Hey Marichka.

[Tyler McBrien]

I just got to the White House. Where are you?

[Maria Hlitin]

Okay, I'm coming straight to the White House. I'm in this, you know. My skirt has Ukrainian red type embroidered things so you'll not confuse.

[Tyler McBrien]

I'll see you shortly.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

It's a rainy September day in Washington D.C. our executive producer Max has an umbrella in one hand and a microphone in the other. And just outside the White House, he's meeting a Ukrainian activist named Maria Hlitin. She goes by Marichka.

[Tyler McBrien]

Hey, good to see you.

[Maria Hlitin]

Not a lot of people at all.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Hey, you're still doing it.

[Maria Hlitin]

At least I can give you the interview for the podcast.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Marichka gathers a small crowd of protesters. They head toward the tall fence outside the north lawn of the White house. There's about 20 people huddled together now beneath jackets, raincoats, and umbrellas. And they start to unfold a huge banner that's some 50ft across.

[Tyler McBrien]

So what's the game plan? What are they doing?

[Maria Hlitin]

Yeah, so they're unfolding the huge poster which says let Ukraine strike back. Because it's the main ask right now. And, you know, whenever we'll start striking back, we'll save more lives and we'll prevent more damages from happening.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

It's been almost three years since Russia's full scale invasion. The United States has given Ukraine many weapons to defend itself. Tanks, missiles, aircraft. But this support has been increasingly difficult to get out of the US Congress as the war continues. And some of those weapons came with red tape. For example, the Biden administration put restrictions on how Ukraine could use long range missiles. For more than two years. Ukraine couldn't hit military targets inside Russia. As the rain picks up, more and more people start to trickle in, grab parts of the banner and and hold it up in the air. There's Ukrainians like Marichka and plenty of Americans, too. The crowd is now big enough that the Secret Service approaches them. They check to see if Marichka and the group have the right permits.

[Maria Hlitin]

One moment, I have this permit thing.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Afterwards, she leads the group in a chant.

[Rob Chevell]

Let Ukraine win.

[Maria Hlitin]

Let Ukraine win. Let Ukraine win.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Let Ukraine win. Let Ukraine. Ukraine win.

[Tyler McBrien]

Nasty. And I have found many moments like this between the United States and Ukraine. Moments like the Chicken Kyiv speech you heard in the last episode, where American and Ukrainian perspectives clash and end up creating policy disagreements with huge ramifications. There's another moment like that in the mid-90s that casts a shadow over the two countries to this day. It's the story of an agreement that's less than three pages long. And much like the Chicken Kiev speech, most Americans have never heard of it. But now, 30 years later, many Ukrainians hate it. It's the story of the Budapest Memorandum, the Budapest Memorandum.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

This famous Budapest Memorandum.

[Tyler McBrien]

The tension over the Budapest memo is one of the things that brought those protesters to the White House. Marichka, the activist leading them, is bouncing around talking to speakers and organizers. Marichka wasn't even born when the Budapest memo was signed. But when we ask her about it, she takes time to stop and answer.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

What do you think about the Budapest memory?

[Maria Hlitin]

Oh, I think it's a total fail, actually. I think, oh, my goodness, like, we signed this document here. What we have right now, we have the war starting in 2014. We have annexation of Crimea, attack on eastern Ukraine, and then they are moving forward, and now they are able to attack.

[Tyler McBrien]

Marichka talks about the Budapest memo often when she's leading demonstrations like this or when she's talking to lawmakers about supporting Ukraine. She says the story of the Budapest memoir is a warning to all of us.

[Maria Hlitin]

History is, you know, going like a circle, and the only thing we need to think of right now is we need to actually learn how to learn from history.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

From Lovefair and Goat Rodeo. This is Escalation, a podcast about the United States and Ukraine. I am Anastasia lopatyna.

[Tyler McBrien]

I'm Tyler McBrien.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

This is episode two, no guarantees.

[Sarah Sievers]

I first went to Ukraine in 1991. I was actually, of all things, crazy thing, I was on a tour as a gopher for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Bet you didn't see that coming.

[Tyler McBrien]

That's Sarah Sievers. You heard from her in the last episode. In 1992, Sarah joins the US State Department as a foreign service officer. She's sent to the first American Embassy in Kyiv.

[Sarah Sievers]

It just. It was so romantic that there was a new country starting. I mean, here I am, all of 22 or whatever I was at the time, and they assigned me to help write a constitution or I advise on writing a constitution. I mean, what did I know from this? Right?

[Unknown Announcer]

So.

[Sarah Sievers]

So you can't underestimate how exciting it was.

[Tyler McBrien]

While it's exciting for Sarah, it's also an impossibly difficult time for average Ukrainians. The transition to a market economy after decades of communist rule is brutal. Millions of families now live below the poverty line, and the political system is inefficient and chaotic. The US Is helping Ukraine with money and manpower, but Sarah tells us that it really has one priority.

[Sarah Sievers]

Denuclearizing Ukraine. That was just. Clearly, the goal was fewer nukes pointed at the United States from a country we didn't know how to interact with or how to trust.

[Tyler McBrien]

The White House wants nukes out of Ukraine. The logic is the fewer nuclear states, the better.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

But to Ukrainians, the story is much more complicated. First, you need to know how the nukes got there. When the Cold War ends, Ukraine and Russia both have to reinvent their countries. And with it, establish a new relationship. For hundreds of years, Russia treated Ukraine as its colony, as a de facto extension of itself. So when Ukraine breaks off, that loss is extremely painful for Moscow. But what that loss means in practice is its own different kind of nightmare. Here is Mariana Budyarin, a Ukrainian academic at Harvard.

[Sarah Sievers]

So the loss of Ukraine was so painful to Russia in terms of psychologically, in terms of identity, certainly also economically and in terms of military might. Right back in 1990, Ukraine was home to some of the newest, most advanced military units and technologies and weapons.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

That's because for many years, Ukrainian and Russian armies existed basically as a single organism. Huge numbers of Russian personnel and weapons were stationed on Ukrainian territory. But it was a Soviet army one way or the other. When the USSR dissolves, that changes.

[Steven Peifer]

There's no guarantee that some of these long, simmering tensions, ethnic, religious, is going to require all the statesmanship in the.

[Unknown Announcer]

World to prevent that kind of explosion.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

People with bad intentions can get hold of weapons that can shoot down airplanes or weapons that can shoot people. That fear will be there, however, on the part of the other newly independent states could in fact, become once again an imperial Russia. The militaries and the weapons are being parsed out along national lines, and this division is a huge headache. But for Ukraine, something else is. Is making it infinitely harder.

[Sarah Sievers]

The inheritance of Soviet Union's nuclear weapons.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

During the Cold War, the Russians invested heavily in maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal scattered across the Soviet Union. So when Ukraine becomes independent, it has the world's third largest nuclear arsenal sitting on its territory. 900 nuclear warheads and more than 2,000 tactical nukes. But it's a huge liability for both Ukrainians and Russians, but especially the Americans.

[Tyler McBrien]

Nukes in Ukraine is a disaster scenario for America, for one. Generally speaking, the world is better off with fewer nuclear powers and weapons. But the US Is still worried about violence breaking out between former Soviet republics. And Ukraine isn't the only new inheritor of nuclear weapons. Belarus and Kazakhstan got some as well, though in much smaller numbers. So from an American perspective, the goal becomes not just preventing violence, but preventing a nuclear conflict. From her post in Kyiv, Sarah Sievers hears plenty of rumors about loose nukes in Ukraine.

[Sarah Sievers]

You could go to, like, bars in Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine, and, you know, there would be like, you want to buy a nuke, go to that bar, talk to this guy, and maybe you'll be lucky. I mean, if people would actually go try it out. So it was nuts.

[Tyler McBrien]

Nuts is probably an understatement. The fate of a nuclear arsenal is up in the air. So it's no wonder that when it comes to talking to the Ukrainians, the Americans don't really trust them. Remember, this is really the first time they've interacted. And even though the Americans and Russians spent decades on the brink of war, the White House becomes very close to Russian leadership in the 90s. The Russians may be a long time adversary, but unlike the Ukrainians, they're familiar.

[Sarah Sievers]

It's really a strange thing, but I think our diplomatic corps, they were much more comfortable dealing with the Soviets. Then the Ukrainians come along and they say, wait a minute, we're a country. So, so how did we react to all of this? Well, I mean, it's probably not very nice to say, but I think there was a little bit of the country bumpkin attitude. So they don't know what they're doing, they don't understand what they're doing, they're inexperienced. Like, where are these Soviets who know what's going on? Can we find a Ukrainian who was in Moscow to come back to Kiev.

[Tyler McBrien]

To show them what they're supposed to be doing? We'll be back after the break.

[Unknown Announcer]

Escalation would not be possible without the support of Deleteme. Deleteme is a personal data removal service. And across this series we've been talking to the leaders at Deleteme about their work and how it protects individuals and businesses against threats to their data privacy and safety. I'm here with Rob Chevell, Deleteme's co founder and CEO. Rob, there's all sorts of services that can scrub my private information from the Internet. Why should I trust Deleteme to do this job for me?

[Rob Chevell]

We've been in business for 15 years and that means we've seen it all, we've done it all, and in short, there's no substitute or shortcut for that kind of experience. We have by far the most important and best customers. That includes four of the five top banks, five of the 10 top technology companies, three of the largest federal government agencies, 12 state legislatures and judicial systems. And we work very hard to make sure that they are happy and trust us on an ongoing basis. But ultimately, the company that Deleteme aspires to be is the one that wants to protect you and your family and cares the most about making that protection sustainable year after year.

[Unknown Announcer]

For more information on Deleteme and its services, go to joindeleteme.com escalation and use the code ESCALATION to get 20% off a personal plan and you can contact them there about a special offer to protect your business too. That's joindeleteme.com escalation code escalation. Now back to the show.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Before the break, we told you that when the Soviet Union falls, Ukraine inherits thousands of nuclear weapons. They're extremely valuable, both financially and politically. But there is a caveat. Ukraine can't actually keep any of them for many reasons. For one, it doesn't have the money to do it. Maintaining these weapons is extremely expensive and Ukraine's economy is in shambles. On top of that, the US is actively pushing for the reduction of nuclear arsenals all around the world. Ukraine has to cooperate or risk alienating a crucial potential ally. But most importantly, the weapons control and command infrastructure is all in Russia. Which means that the Ukrainians have the weapons, but they can't launch any of them. This is the messy landscape that Ukrainian diplomats have to navigate. One of them was Boris Tarasuk, the Foreign Minister's deputy in the 90s. Tarasuk has been making deals with American and Russian diplomats for decades. And if nothing else, he's learned three things doing it.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

First, do not believe Russians. Second, do not believe Russians. Third, do not believe Russians.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

When it comes to the nukes. Teresuk says that the Ukrainians aren't in a strong negotiating position to have a.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

Maintenance of this nuclear warheads, we had to invite and be dependent on Russian specialists and be dependent on Moscow.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

That means that Ukraine has only two keep the nuclear weapons and become a threat to the US or get rid of the nukes and be independent from Moscow.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

For me, independence was much higher value for us Ukrainians than to possess nuclear weapons without any possibility to influence its use.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

In the moment, few Ukrainian politicians seriously argue in favor of keeping the nukes. The real issue is how to give them up in a way that doesn't damage Ukraine's national interests. Thus begins the years long tug of war between Ukraine, Russia and the United States. The negotiations that reshape the world's security for decades to come. The money is the easy part. The nukes are extremely valuable and strategically important. So Russia and the US agreed to give Ukraine more than a billion dollars to help dismantle the weapons and support Ukraine's fragile economy. But then comes the hard part.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

Our objective was to receive, in exchange of giving up nuclear weapons, national security guarantees. Because we were of the opinion that we were in great need of national security having such neighbor as Russia.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Ukraine wants a guarantee that if it gives up nuclear weapons, Russia will respect its borders and won't invade, they want the guarantee in writing and for it to be legally binding, some sort of agreement that includes conditions to punish Russia in case they break the deal. This demand from the Ukrainians does not only stem from centuries of Russian imperialism. As soon as Ukraine becomes independent, new reasons to worry keep coming up. Russian parliament voted today to declare the 1954 Grant of Crimea to Ukraine unconstitutional and void.

[Rob Chevell]

Ukraine has argued that any tampering with.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Republic borders would lead to chaos and more violence. Some in the Russian government start questioning Ukraine's borders, even threatening to annex territory. The division of the military is still a huge problem. The Russians want to take as much as possible from Ukraine. So it quickly becomes clear that the Kremlin would only accept Ukraine's independence if the country stayed in its orbit. Ukrainian politicians stall the negotiations on nuclear weapons. Over and over. Those nukes are the only bargaining chip they have. Mariana Budearin says that this sends a very clear message to the Ukrainians.

[Sarah Sievers]

This new Russia is likely to be a lot more like the old rather than this reformed and democratic entity. And that again is to say that even some of the most westernized, some of the most liberal and progressive forces in Russia, they would still regard Ukraine as this colonial possession.

[Tyler McBrien]

But in the west, few see that there's a popular belief that it can become a normal, democratic, prosperous country.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

And to be fair, many Ukrainians don't see Russia as a threat either. The Ukrainian government is still full of communists and the society is mostly ambivalent. Decades of Soviet rule did exactly what it intended to do. Russified huge swathes of the Ukrainian population. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, most people just care about feeding their families more than anything else. So it is up to a defiant minority to raise the alarm over ties with Moscow. That a souk is one of those people.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

In my first meeting with then President Bush Sr. I drew his attention that it was a mistake from the very beginning that Washington was looking at Ukraine through Moscow, interest through Moscow glasses. And he told me that he will convey this to his successor, President Clinton. I don't know whether he conveyed this message to President Clinton, but he promised me at least.

[Tyler McBrien]

So the White House is clearly on the fence about Ukraine and its future. Up Until September of 1993, the nuclear negotiations are mostly between Kyiv and Moscow. The US is nudging, but it's not yet engaged in nitty gritty diplomacy. And that fall, the Ukrainians and Russians say they've finally resolved the nuclear issue. That's great news to American diplomats like Steven Peifer. He would go on to be the third ever U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

[Steven Peifer]

And so, in Washington's initial reaction, getting the problem solved. That agreement lasts about two days before it quickly falls apart.

[Tyler McBrien]

Peifer is one of the key characters in this story, and he says that when it becomes clear that Ukraine and Russia can't get the nuclear deal done, the White House decides to mediate. That winter, Peifer joins other American and Russian officials in Kyiv to talk it out, and they begin drafting a new security agreement. Things fall into place pretty quickly. The easy parts remain the same. Ukraine gives nukes to Russia, Russia destroys them and pays compensation. But we gotta pause here because this is the most surreal part of this story. For all of the world changing implications and high stakes negotiations surrounding this nuclear deal. Diplomacy can sometimes come down to a single word, guarantees. This whole time, the Russians and the Ukrainians have been negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine. Guarantees that if Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons, its borders would be safe. Guarantees that if Russia ever threatens Ukraine, the other countries like the US who signed this document, would come to Ukraine's defense. That's when American diplomat Steven Peifer reads the text and sees that guarantee.

[Steven Peifer]

And I said, this is a deal breaker for us.

[Tyler McBrien]

The whole deal screeches to a halt because of a language barrier made up of one word.

[Steven Peifer]

It turned out that both the Russians and the Ukrainians had translated the English word assurances into garanty in Russian and hot and tea in Ukrainian.

[Tyler McBrien]

Assurances versus guarantees. That last word represents a huge problem for Peifer because the White House isn't ready to guarantee Ukraine anything. So Peifer says that when they translate this document into English, the word guarantee won't be on it.

[Steven Peifer]

We need to agree that when you see the word guarantee in the Russian text or the word hadn'ty in the Ukrainian text, it is understood in the English sense word assurance. That was important to the Americans because when we use guarantee in a document like this, a guarantee is what we give our NATO allies. It's what we give Japan, South Korea, Australia. We were not prepared to make that kind of commitment to the Ukrainians, guarantee.

[Tyler McBrien]

Is undoubtedly a stronger word than assurance. An assurance that I'll pay a bill is much less likely than if I guarantee I'll do it. And this difference isn't lost in translation. The Ukrainians and the Americans both knew of this. Peifer and the White House make it clear that they want to avoid getting pulled into another global conflict.

[Steven Peifer]

We said, look, we're using the word assurance and what that means because they would ask us, well, what happens if the Russians violate this agreement. And we said, we will take an interest, we will do things. But we said, we're telling you now, we're not sending the 82nd Airborne.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

It isn't just that the priorities of Kyiv and Washington are different. Ukraine is clearly more concerned with keeping its borders intact than with keeping the nukes within them. Both sides are also catering to their own domestic audiences. In Ukraine, diplomats want to show to the parliament the that they negotiated a strong document, one that guarantees Ukraine's security going forward. But in the US domestic pressures make a legally binding commitment impossible. Congress would never agree to extend a strong, legally binding, NATO like commitment to a country it barely knew. So the US and Ukraine end up signing a document that essentially says different things depending on which language you read it in. In English it's titled Memorandum on Security Assurances. And in Ukrainian it's Memorandum prohoranti Bespeke, which translates to Memorandum on Guarantees of Security. But in fact there were no guarantees in that document. In very simple terms, they agree to disagree. Boris Tarasyug had set out to get a legally binding security guarantee from the west, but the Ukrainians received something else instead. Something murkier and less firm than what they had been hoping for.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

Although these were not guarantees ratified by the parliament, but this document was signed by the highest officials of four states. Any of those who signed, they bear the international responsibility for the implementation.

[Tyler McBrien]

We'll be back after the break.

[Unknown Announcer]

Support for escalation comes from Deleteme, the industry leader in personal data removal. We're back with Rob Chevelle, the co founder and CEO of Delete Me, to talk about how his team leads leads the way when it comes to data privacy. Rob, what's Deleteme doing to stay ahead of the curve and keep people and businesses protected when it comes to their data?

[Rob Chevell]

Deleteme has a ton of things going on in our product roadmap that we're really excited about and that are going to protect privacy better than ever. We have a whole Labs team devoted to AI, so we're going to be bringing out AI removals for OpenAI, ChatGPT, Claude, Google, all of the rest of them, so that we're going to be able to search those large language models and make sure that your data and your family's data is redacted from them on an ongoing basis. Beyond that, you can be exposed in your photos and that data can be sucked up and purchased by data brokers. There are all kinds of ways that we need to protect from photos and digital images to Street View and Google removals of your house. And they're all being actively worked on. We're always adding new ways that your privacy is protected. That comes free, ongoing all year with your subscription.

[Unknown Announcer]

For more information on Deleteme and its services, go to joindeleteme.com escalation and use the code ESCALATION to get 20% off a personal plan. And you can contact them there about a special offer to protect your business too. That's joindeleteme.com escalation code escalation. Now back to the show.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Good morning, Mr. President.

[Steven Peifer]

Speed.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

In January 1994, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia and the United States arrive at a summit in Budapest to sign their huge nuclear deal. The United Kingdom ends up signing it too, as one of the guarantors of Ukraine's security going forward. At the same time, the Ukraine formally.

[Sarah Sievers]

Renounced nuclear arms by joining the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine inherited all almost 2,000 warheads. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

President Clinton heralded both signings as the arrival of a new and safe era. Skeptics once claimed that the nuclear threat would actually grow after the Soviet Union dissolved.

[Steven Peifer]

But because of the wisdom and statesmanship of the leaders who joined me here.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

The skeptics had been proven wrong. This agreement would go on to be known as the Budapest Memorandum. And almost immediately, several different realities begin to emerge in its aftermath. In Washington, there is celebration. Steven Pfeiffer and the rest of the American delegation are thrilled.

[Steven Peifer]

From the point of view of the United States, we've signed this agreement. 1900 strategic nuclear warheads that were designed, built and deployed to incinerate American cities are going to be eliminated. That's a good thing in my view. From the American point of view, no.

[Tyler McBrien]

Imminent foreign interventions, no binding security deals, just a memorandum. It isn't even ratified in the Senate, as all legally binding treaties usually are. The US has to pay to get the nukes out, but that's it. In diplomatic circles, that's a win win. But in Ukraine, as always, the story isn't as pretty.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

We had no option.

[Tyler McBrien]

Ukrainian diplomat Boris Terasiuk sees one fundamental problem with the Budapest it isn't about policy. It's about how Americans view Russia.

[Boris Tarasyuk]

They do believe that in order to be comfortable, you have to establish the relationship with Moscow and and everything will be decided by Moscow with the help of Moscow, which is not the case and Ukraine has proven it.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

The silo is destroyed and the former Soviet Union moves closer to reducing its nuclear armory. Funds set aside for that were used to blow up this silo, the 27th.

[Sarah Sievers]

In the Ukraine to be destroyed.

[Tyler McBrien]

The the Budapest memo will have big implications both east and west, because Ukraine's fears of Russian aggression in the 90s will turn into very real bloodshed just decades later. And every time Ukraine comes under threat, Ukrainians point to the Budapest memo, to the American assurances to support Ukraine's defense first. It happens when Russia invades Crimea in 2014. December 5 marks 20 years since the signing of the Budapest memorandum. Now, two decades on, Ukraine and its international partners argue that the treaty has been lost in time. Then the Budapest memo comes up again, almost eight years later.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

We have a formal obligation, a commitment the United States made to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. Why is that?

[Tyler McBrien]

Here's American lawmaker Ted Cruz speaking on the Senate floor in 2022.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

The United States made a formal commitment to the Ukrainians that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, we would help them protect themselves. And the Ukrainians are asking us to honor our commitment.

[Tyler McBrien]

Many American officials were involved in the creation of the Budapest memo, from consular officers to ambassadors, all the way up to the President of the United States. And nearly all of them are conflicted about it now. Steven Peifer is one of them. Peifer led the charge to get the Budapest memo signed. He still stands by it. In a lot of ways, the risk of nuclear war outweighed the Ukrainians concerns. But Peifer still gets a lot of grief over it.

[Steven Peifer]

To the extent that we made a mistake, the mistake was in Washington and in Kyiv is that we did not foresee somebody like Vladimir Putin coming to power and what he did in 2014 and 2022.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

And Peifer claims that even though many Ukrainians hate that deal, the United States has delivered. When Russia invades Ukraine in 2014, the Americans don't send the 82nd Airborne, but they do get involved and provide Ukrainians with some assistance. Peifer's problem with the memo is how rarely American officials talk about it, how Washington seems to have forgotten what Ukraine gave up, the obligations the US Gave them in return, and why Americans should care.

[Steven Peifer]

We care because back in the early 1990s, the Ukrainians did something that was hugely important to the United States by getting rid of these large number of nuclear weapons. And we had made a commitment there. I mean, we'd sort of written a check. We hoped that it would never have to be cashed. But all of a sudden Putin is doing something which I think then requires that we do something.

[Tyler McBrien]

In the 90s, Sarah Sievers was one of the American Officials who was frustrated with the Ukrainians and their slow march toward giving up the nukes. She celebrated when they got rid of them. Sarah was proud of the Budapest memo. Not anymore.

[Sarah Sievers]

They said over and over and over and over again that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, it was only a matter of time before Russia would invade them again and they would lose their country. That was their objection, and we just ignored it.

[Tyler McBrien]

So people in Ukraine describe this moment, I think, specifically as a betrayal. Do you think that's accurate?

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Do you think that's fair?

[Sarah Sievers]

Yes, it's a betrayal. We like to point out what we're doing for Ukraine, but look at what we're not doing that we could do. We still don't listen when the Ukrainians say, this is what we need to protect ourselves from Russia. We still underestimate the horror that Russian nationalism is to their neighbors. It's unpleasant, it's uncomfortable. So we basically continue to shove it under the rug in some ways or others, to some degree or other, and. And Ukraine suffers.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Ukrainians hate the Budapest memo. They see it as the first of many broken promises from the West. And if Ukraine had held onto its nuclear weapons, maybe it wouldn't be in the position that it's currently in. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy talks about the memo often. Here he is in the fall of 2024. All the other security guarantors of the Budapest memorandum, none of them gave a.

[Unknown Announcer]

Damn about this country, these people, these security guarantees, etc.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

It was a piece of paper.

[Tyler McBrien]

Even former US President Bill Clinton, who signed the memo, is conflicted. Now here's President Clinton in an interview in 2023.

[Steven Peifer]

And I feel terrible about it because.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

Ukraine is a very important country. And I feel a personal stake because I got them to agree to give up their nuclear weapons. And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons. Once the Budapest memo is signed, there is a lot of goodwill between the US President, Bill Clinton, and the Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. Thanks to your leadership, Ukraine is making the hard choices that will ensure the prosperity Ukrainians deserve. Kuchma fancies himself a pro Russian and a pro Western leader of Ukraine. But over time, Ukraine's small and unstable government will become riddled with corruption, much of it at Kuchma's own hand. Mlislava Gangadze is now an accomplished Ukrainian journalist, but she started her career covering the Kuchma regime in the 90s with her husband, another prominent journalist named Georgiye Gangadze. President Kuchma was trying to show the world that he is this new Ukrainian leader building up the country independent state. But internally, the corruption, the crimes, the backsliding in democracy, the control of the media, the control of political processes, all of this was happening. A Ukrainian court has dismissed a charge against former President Lilian Khushi.

[Tyler McBrien]

The scandal sparked the biggest problem protests.

[Rob Chevell]

In the country's history.

[Anastasia Lopatyna]

The corruption, the crimes, the backsliding in democracy, the control of the media, the control of political processes, all of this was happening over the course of his presidency. Leonid Kuchma would court American support in whatever way possible. But the US Ukraine relationship will begin to crumble in the 2000s when Ukrainian society will plug in plunge into its first and arguably the most shocking political scandal in the country's history. At that moment I realized that the president of my country is possibly involved in the murder of my husband. That's next time on Escalation. Escalation is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. You can follow the show on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts to stay up to date on new episodes. And please leave us a rating and a review while you're there. Escalation's lead producer is Max Johnston. The show was reported and written by me, Anastasia Lopatina, Tyler McBrien, Max Johnston and Benjamin Wittes. Executive producers at Goat Rodeo are Max Johnston, Ian Enright and Megan Nadolsky. Executive producers at Lawfare are Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpet and Scott Anderson. Additional production assistants at Goat Rodeo From Isabel, Kirby McGowan, Rebecca Seidel, Kara Schulen, Jay Venables and Hazel Hoffman. Additional production assistance at Lawfare from Anna Hickey, Patrick Cole and Quinta Jurecik. Sound design, scoring, mixing and engineering from Max Johnston and Ian Unright. Our theme is Enigma by Charlie Edwards. Additional music from Blue Dot Sessions and Alibi Music. Our cover art was designed by Marie Keanovic.

[Unknown Announcer]

Escalation is presented by Deleteme, the industry leader in personal data removal. Deleteme is trusted by 20% of the Fortune 500 and by federal, state and county courts across across the United States. For more information on Delete Me and its services for individuals and businesses, go to joindeleteme.com escalation.