22

In a talk show (apparently on BBC One) Corbyn said "Can't we go back to the point when Ukraine was a nuclear-free country?"

I'm at a loss as to what he means by that. Is he talking about nuclear weapons and implying Ukraine has those now? Or (less likely) about civil nuclear power, which somehow doesn't seem too related to NATO bases allegedly surrounding Russia (the topic of his previous sentence)? I know that Russia has been claiming that Ukraine was working on a dirty bomb or something like that. Is Corbyn endorsing those claims (elsewhere in his speeches)? Or he just misspoke altogether?

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806

1 Answers1

33

This video is from March 9th, 2014, in the context of Russia's invasion of Crimea - not the most recent invasion which began in 2022. The quote is referring to the renewed debate at that time over Ukraine's acceptance of the Budapest Memorandum - a consequence of which was Ukraine surrendering its Soviet-era nuclear weapons to Russia - and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in return for security guarantees including a promise to "respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" from the USA, the UK, and Russia.

The debate was generally centred around the idea that had Ukraine not surrendered its nuclear weapons, Russia would not have dared to invade. Indeed, a day after the debate in the video, USA Today published a statement from Ukrainian MP Pavlo Rizanenko, who suggested that Ukraine should arm itself with nuclear weapons to defend itself from Russia.

Corbyn seems to be arguing here that there was a period between the 1994 memorandum and the 2014 invasion where Ukraine existed independently from NATO or Russia, and he wants to return to this point. An additional quote from the same debate is below, where he specifically mentions the memorandum:

I’m not supportive of Russian military action and I do think there has to be a peace process and there has to be a process of demilitarization of Ukraine and sticking to the original non-nuclear agreement but I would also say this – the hypocrisy of the west is unbelievable on this!

Where was the legality in the war in Iraq, where was the legality of so many other interventions made elsewhere and if one reads, very carefully, what all the Ukrainian forces are saying, yes there is a very nasty far-right force in Ukraine at the present time which is part of the government, there is also a more liberal grouping in the Ukraine, there is also a very large Russian grouping in the Ukraine who obviously have some loyalties toward Russia.

Does Ukraine break up? That’s a matter for the Ukrainian people but the idea that we should move the whole thing, in rhetoric, towards some kind of military war against Russia seems to me, an absolute disaster!

Towards the end of March, the US and Ukraine issued a joint statement reaffirming the memorandum, and emphasising the "important role of nuclear nonproliferation" in their relationship, which goes to show that the suggestions of arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons were taken seriously enough by governments that they felt the need to reassure observers that this was not on the cards.

CDJB
  • 106,388
  • 31
  • 455
  • 516
  • 2
    Corbyn seems to have been confused. When he said "...a process of demilitarization of Ukraine and sticking to the original non-nuclear agreement," he clearly seemed to be implying that he believed Ukraine to have some type of nuclear weapons program. – Obie 2.0 Feb 14 '23 at 15:28
  • 14
    @Obie2.0 I read his calling for demilitarization to be in the sense of calling for Russia to withdraw their troops from Ukraine, and comply with their obligations under Budapest, rather than calling for Ukraine to cease a nuclear weapons program. – CDJB Feb 14 '23 at 16:24
  • 12
    It's worth noting in your answer that as part of the Budapest agreement, the signatories agreed to: Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. In essence, Russia is treaty bound to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and boundaries. Russia obviously abrogated that in 2014. – Flydog57 Feb 14 '23 at 20:47
  • 1
    Ukraine should arm itself with nuclear weapons to defend itself from Russia => the MP was 100% correct. Ukraine's only option for future self-defense is to either procure nukes or join NATO so that Moscow gets nuked if Russia invades again. I guess Russia breaking up would also be great for them but this might be harder to achieve. – JonathanReez Feb 15 '23 at 18:25