Tucker Carlson Tells Former UK Minister No Treaty Obliges U.S. to Fight Russia

Tucker Carlson told Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former Conservative member of Parliament who served as Britain's business secretary and leader of the House of Commons, that no treaty commits the United States to fight Russia over Ukraine. The text of the 1994 agreement at the center of their argument largely backs him up.

The exchange came in an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show recorded at Rees-Mogg's home. Rees-Mogg was defending his call for Britain to prepare for war with Russia. He pointed to the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia.

"There is no treaty that obligates the United States. I'm speaking with authority on this," Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg did not dispute it. "It is not an agreement to go to war, nor strictly speaking is Article V of NATO," he replied. "It's not a requirement to go to war."

Tucker Carlson and Jacob Rees-Mogg on the Budapest Memorandum

The real disagreement was over what the agreement is worth. Rees-Mogg argued that Washington took on a stake in Ukraine's borders when it signed. "I'm saying that if you don't think America has an interest in this, it shouldn't have signed the treaty, and then Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons," he said.

Rees-Mogg told Carlson he seemed "devoid of nuance, that the two questions are not the same." Carlson was unmoved. "Doesn't suggest the course of action that you're suggesting, so the treaty is immaterial to this," he said.

What the Budapest Memorandum Says

The memorandum, signed December 5, 1994, is titled "Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." In it, Russia, Britain and the U.S. "reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine...to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and to "refrain from the threat or use of force" against it.

The agreement asks for little action from the signatories. They pledge to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action" only if Ukraine faces aggression "in which nuclear weapons are used." Otherwise they agree only to "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

After Russia seized Crimea in 2014, the National Constitution Center noted that the signatories committed to Ukraine's borders but "did not include any promises about how they would defend that nation."

On the narrow legal question, the text supports Carlson. On the political commitment, it supports Rees-Mogg: Washington put its signature to Ukraine's borders, and so did Moscow.

Tucker Carlson's 2014 'Overthrow' Claim

Carlson also cited "the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by NATO in 2014." He later said Ukraine "has been completely controlled by NATO and the United States and the US Intel agencies since at least 2014," and called it "a proxy state."

The record is more complicated. President Viktor Yanukovych left Kyiv in February 2014 after weeks of protests in which 77 people were killed in central Kyiv. Ukraine's parliament then voted 328 of 447 deputies to remove him, and Yanukovych called the move a coup. A leaked call that year caught U.S. diplomats Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt discussing which opposition leaders should join a government. Moscow cited the call as proof of U.S. meddling.

"I don't think that's right," Rees-Mogg replied. "I think that the American interest is in having an independent Ukraine that makes its own decisions."

Where Americans Stand on Ukraine

The U.S. public is split on how far its commitment should go. A Pew Research Center survey conducted March 23-29 found that 29 percent of Americans said the U.S. was not doing enough for Ukraine, 26 percent said it was doing the right amount and 20 percent said it was doing too much.