> Ukraine got screwed over, both by Russia and by the other signatories of that 'note'

Ukraine had no alternative.

We have various analyses in the National Security Archives, reports and memoirs from US diplomats involved in the matter: the US was the primary actor that pressured Ukraine in giving up their nuclear stock pile.

Ukraine could not operate it (everything from security, cryptography, controls, navigations, etc was in Moscow anyway), could not maintain it, and could not even guard their stock pile.

The biggest risk for the United States was that with the rampant corruption and sell off of soviet weaponry on the black market there were the wrong incentives for too many actors that could bring soviet nuclear weapons in the hands of bad actors.

And we pay them back by restricting their access to weaponry, fight with one arm tied behind their backs against a much larger invader (notably: signatory to that memorandum) and on top of that use them as scapegoat for the effects of conflicts caused by others.

The US restricts sales of core weaponry to everyone, allies included.

As long as it had allies, it did. This is heading in a very bad direction and if you don't see that then I really can't help.

I don't know where did you get the impression I'm stating the opposite.