War Bill Clinton regrets persuading Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons

Updated / Tuesday, 4 Apr 2023 22:48

By Miriam O'Callaghan
Prime Time Presenter

Former US president Bill Clinton has expressed regret in an RTÉ interview about his role in persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994.
Mr Clinton suggested that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Kyiv still had its nuclear deterrent.
Mr Clinton addressed the ongoing war in Ukraine when he spoke to Prime Time about his role in the Northern Ireland peace process and assessed recent developments.
"I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] 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," he said.
In January 1994, Mr Clinton signed a tripartite agreement with the then presidents of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, to eliminate the arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons which remained on Ukrainian soil after the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States was also party to a related agreement later in the same year, which included Russian commitments to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
These commitments were broken in 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and further shattered when it began a wider war against Ukraine last year.
"I knew that President Putin did not support the agreement President Yeltsin made never to interfere with Ukraine's territorial boundaries - an agreement he made because he wanted Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons.
"They were afraid to give them up because they thought that's the only thing that protected them from an expansionist Russia," Mr Clinton said.
"When it became convenient to him, President Putin broke it and first took Crimea. And I feel terrible about it because Ukraine is a very important country."
Mr Clinton said western support for Ukraine should remain steadfast.
"I think what Mr. Putin did was very wrong, and I believe Europe and the United States should continue to support Ukraine. There may come a time when the Ukrainian government believes that they can think of a peace agreement they could live with, but I don't think the rest of us should cut and run on them."
Mr Clinton's admission of regret was "very frank," University of Galway law lecturer, Larry Donnelly, told Prime Time.
"It is understandable in light of everything that has happened why he feels that regret that he does," Mr Donnelly said. "At the same time, it is understandable why he did what he did, trying to denuclearise the world, trying to improve relations and engage constructively with Russia...Of course it is also understandable why the Ukrainian people are angry about that."
Mr Donnelly also said it was surprising that the US role in denuclearising Ukraine "hasn’t featured more prominently in the debate in the United States about whether supporting Ukraine is the right thing, or not, to do.
"A lot of Americans say, 'this is a problem very far away from us, why should we be involved,’ but I think a lot of them could be moved at a moral level if they saw the United States’ role in what happened in 1994" when Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons.
 
lol these holhols could barely keep their Soviet nuclear power plants running without Russia's help, and I like how Slick Willy omitted the fact the nukes were useless to the independent Ukraine because they could only be launched from Moscow. No matter how cucked Yeltsin was they were never going to get the ability to launch them.
 
Scary thing is - for every 3 confirmed Empty Quiver events for the US? There's probably 1 that's still secret.

And then consider that the USSR probably outdid the US' tally by a factor of two or three but just won't fess up about it.

Consider how many subs the USSR lost to accident/unknown circumstance vs those the USN lost in the same time frame, it's about 2 to 1, there's no logical reason their ground forces were any better with their nukes than the navy.
Yeah, if they can hide their fuck up they probably will. Not like many people can expose it without risks to their own life.
 
Nukes wouldn't have stopped Russia's invasion.

At absolute optimistic best - and quite ironically - nukes might have actually made things worse for Ukrainian independence as they (again, optimistically) would have just forced the Russians to play their hand smarter and rely more on glowies and ukie traitors rather than just zerg-rushing their conventional forces into a meat-grinder slog.

Billy Boy is as senile as Biden at this point, and quite possibly suffering from some lingering STD(s), so this is just quite possibly just his (or Hillary's) handler's talking.
 
At least he had not have sex with this woman, did not pause his electoral race in order to oversee the execution of a severly mentally ill condamned inmate, did not spearhead an unjust war against Serbia. LEAVE CLINTON ALONE!
 
It is sad but probable that the Ukraine will fall to Russia. With Finland joining NATO the USA got something out of this conflict that was priceless - the entire border to Europe now essentially NATO.

In every conflict you are set to gain something and I can’t help but feel this was a set up from the word go. “Look what happens when you dont Join NATO.” And it proves Russia’s treaties are worthless.

The Ukraine will be sacrificed and we will know more about russias true capabilities more so than ever as a result. Again, that is worth billions.

When China makes its moves in Taiwan it too will be sacrificed.

The world is being split in 2 but I think everyone is in agreement to prevent a terrible war we all have to align our resources and technology so that no country is forced to go to the nuclear option.

Without Taiwan being crucial to our technology (as we build factories to make chips) the ability to let it go increases and we can install nuclear power within Japan to essentially have sufficient deterrent warheads on all sides of Russia and China.

Japan is about to become a nuclear power within the next 4 years.
 
I would say that Clinton pushing to make China an economic peer on the world stage and the ramifications are far more egregious. It was the catalyst that put the final nail in the coffin of full self-relaince for the US and built up our current biggest enemy. Before Slick Willy pushed to bring China into the world economy, it was still a poor shithole with only a fraction of the clout it has now. I mean, it's still a shithole and most of the Chinks are poor as fuck, but now they're the closest thing to a peer and threat that the US has.
 
It is sad but probable that the Ukraine will fall to Russia. With Finland joining NATO the USA got something out of this conflict that was priceless - the entire border to Europe now essentially NATO.

In every conflict you are set to gain something and I can’t help but feel this was a set up from the word go. “Look what happens when you dont Join NATO.” And it proves Russia’s treaties are worthless.

The Ukraine will be sacrificed and we will know more about russias true capabilities more so than ever as a result. Again, that is worth billions.

When China makes its moves in Taiwan it too will be sacrificed.

The world is being split in 2 but I think everyone is in agreement to prevent a terrible war we all have to align our resources and technology so that no country is forced to go to the nuclear option.

Without Taiwan being crucial to our technology (as we build factories to make chips) the ability to let it go increases and we can install nuclear power within Japan to essentially have sufficient deterrent warheads on all sides of Russia and China.

Japan is about to become a nuclear power within the next 4 years.
That's a two way street though.

America is also showing it's treaties are worthless - in Ukraine and Afghanistan. Part of Ukraine's disarmament was a US promise to protect them from Russia in this exact scenario on top of being the driving force of NATO promising Russia that it would not expand "one inch east" from Germany. Skip ahead to NATO flooding Ukraine with weapons, training, money, and anything else they possibly could and Russia starts feeling like that NATO is going to expand regardless. Obama shit his pants and did nothing when Crimea was annexed and Biden gave a small nod for a "small incursion" into Ukraine, and the entire US government (save for Donald Trump) looking the other way whenever Ukraine did anything wrong.

On top of all this - NATO is subjective. America has shown severe disregard for it's allies by destroying NordStream2 - clearly indicating that USA's priorities are more important than it's allies.

NATO expanded but the member nations have really been shaken and have to really consider "If Russia actually invaded - would America/Germany/Canada/etc really intercede or would they find some way to shirk the responsibility?" and "could they even help at all, considering all of the domestic energy production, military training, and military recruitment problems they're having at home?". I can't imagine if Finland gets invaded that the US Army is going to have a massive surge of people signing up to die there.
 
Ya think, Bill? Ya think? Ya fucking think?

And how about not going after North Korea in 94? Sure would have stopped their nuke and missile development, would have staved off the famine since the Korean Peninsula would have been reunited under Seoul.

Thanks a whole lot for all your fuckups, Bill. Being paid for in blood now...
 
But no regrets for overturning the Glass-Steagal Act, which caused the 2008 recession? Who paid him off?
 
well you know what they say: hindsight is 2020 and that was 3 years ago
 
Tanner Glass, The USA does not have a treaty of protection with Ukraine. If we did, we would have dived in. There is no such treaty or pact.

NATO is not subjective either. If Finland or any NATO member is touched, NATO will respond. Putin knows this. Everyone else knows this. It's Ok you don't believe this; but they will respond.

We have no treaty with Taiwan. We have the TRA which replaced a treaty and it's wording is deliberately ambiguous so as to imply we will provide defensive materials but not necessarily "defense" for Taiwan.
 
Former US president Bill Clinton has expressed regret in an RTÉ interview about his role in persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994.

Who was in charge of Russia in 1994?



Considering the mood of the video, you can safely assume at the time Russia was following US orders. So the US had nothing to worry about, they'd continue to install guys that would follow US policy. Like Gorbachov

 
Tanner Glass, The USA does not have a treaty of protection with Ukraine. If we did, we would have dived in. There is no such treaty or pact.

NATO is not subjective either. If Finland or any NATO member is touched, NATO will respond. Putin knows this. Everyone else knows this. It's Ok you don't believe this; but they will respond.

We have no treaty with Taiwan. We have the TRA which replaced a treaty and it's wording is deliberately ambiguous so as to imply we will provide defensive materials but not necessarily "defense" for Taiwan.
In January 1994, Mr Clinton signed a tripartite agreement with the then presidents of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, to eliminate the arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons which remained on Ukrainian soil after the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States was also party to a related agreement later in the same year, which included Russian commitments to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
I didn't specifically say a treaty of protection - but we have entered into several agreements with various people and then have not upheld out agreements either, Russia and America both have been wiping their asses with agreements for the better part of 10 years.

We will attack anyone who touches a NATO member, unless it was us doing the attacking (aka Nordstream 2) - where we sabotaged Russia's pipeline providing energy to our own allies because we wouldn't want them making their own decisions on who to purchase energy from. We also very recently abandoned the shit out of our allies in Afghanistan with little remorse as well.

So the message we're sending is essentially "We do not care for agreements even if we say we do. Join NATO and we'll protect you (probably) but you better not do something we don't like".
 
Atrás
Top Abajo