Posted on 04/24/2022 4:47:21 PM PDT by conservative98
Lt. Col. Allen West on Life, Liberty & Levin Sunday, April 24 at 8pm eastern on Fox News. 'It is very sickening' to witness the Russia Ukraine war.
(Excerpt) Read more at rumble.com ...
And Ukraine had no capability to use those nuclear arms even if they wanted to keep them.
If I had been advising the fledgling Ukrainian government back in the early 1990s I would have told them never to sign onto that deal -- because I wouldn't have any confidence in EITHER nation (the U.S. as much as Russia) to abide by its terms. They made their decision. Let them live with it. It's not my problem, and it's not a matter that is anything close to a compelling interest for the U.S.
People like you are just bypassed in industries, and you don’t even know it.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm a nationally recognized authority in my area of expertise. Are you? You can do a Google search on my name and find it on at least a half-dozen publications that are still considered the "state of the practice" in my discipline even a decade after they were published.
Opinion s are like assholes as they say. You have one and I have one.
The Bhudapest Memorandum states: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
Where does that say how Americans get involved? Send some weapons or deploy troops on the ground and provide air cover?
Immediate4 UN Security Council meeting. Those asshats can’t tie their own shoes. Why isn’t the UN intervening with troops on the ground, you know the blue helmet rapist and child molesters? The UN should be abolished. It’s worse than the League of Nations was and if you think the world will ever get nuclear nonproliferation correct you’re dreaming.
My concern is the US and F’ any other country until we clean up our mess.
That’s where I stand.
The “a priori fallacy” is only applicable if someone has decided ahead of time as to what their conclusion is going to be, without considering any other particulars or pieces of evidence on matters which are explicitly empirical.
Looking at America’s track record with foreign military interventions (and their consequences) over the past 20 years and deciding “let’s hold off on doing that for a change” is hardly an example of the “a priori fallacy.”
This is also notwithstanding the fact “a priori reasoning” in and of itself isn’t fallacious if you’re dealing with truths which aren’t empirical.
Thanks, Sonic. This is a great point, too. For the life of me, I can't understand why FReepers who should be well acquainted with the whole idea of "fake news" based on their experience over the last 5-6 years are suddenly hell-bent on accepting at face value all the nonsense that's being peddled to them by the media today.
Ukraine had committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991 when it signed the Lisbon Protocol. Ukraine agreed to accede as a non-nuclear nation.
Ukraine subsequently tried to add conditions to its ratification, which terms were deemed unacceptable by the United States and Russia. There was to be no sovereign state recognition for Byelarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine without their having acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Ukraine then rescinded its conditions and acceded as a non-nuclear state. It's accession as a non-nuclear state was required by Article 5 of the Lisbon Protocol.
All three former members of the USSR acceded to the NPT for the same reason — it was the cost of their gaining recognition as a sovereign state.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf
The Lisbon Protocol
ARTICLE IThe Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty.
ARTICLE II
The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine shall make such arrangements among themselves as are required to implement the Treaty's limits and restrictions; to allow functioning of the verification provisions of the Treaty equally and consistently throughout the territory of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine; and to allocate costs.
ARTICLE III
1. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the phrase, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" shall be interpreted to mean the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.
2. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the phrase, "national territory," when used in the Treaty to refer to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, shall be interpreted to mean the combined national territories of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.
3. For inspections and continuous monitoring activities on the territory of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, or Ukraine, that state shall provide communications from the inspection site or continuous monitoring site to the Embassy of the United States in the respective capital.
4. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the embassy of the Inspecting Party referred to in Section XVI of the Protocol on Inspections and Continuous Monitoring Activities Relating to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms shall be construed to be the embassy of the respective state in Washington or the embassy of the United States of America in the respective capital.
5. The working languages for Treaty activities shall be English and Russian.
ARTICLE IV
Representatives of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine will participate in the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission on a basis to be worked out consistent with Article I of this Protocol.
ARTICLE V
The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine shall adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968 as non-nuclear weapon states Parties in the shortest possible time, and shall begin immediately to take all necessary action to this end in accordance with their constitutional practices.
ARTICLE VI
1. Each Party shall ratify the Treaty together with this Protocol in accordance with its own constitutional procedures. The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine shall exchange instruments of ratification with the United States of America. The Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the final exchange of instruments of ratification.
2. This Protocol shall be an integral part of the Treaty and shall remain in force throughout the duration of the Treaty.
Done at Lisbon on May 23, 1992, in five copies, each in the Byelarusian, English, Kazakh, Russian, and Ukrainian languages, all texts being equally authentic.
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF BYELARUS:
P. KravchankaFOR THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN:
T. ZhukeyevFOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
A. KozyrevFOR UKRAINE:
A. ZlenkoFOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
James A. Baker, III
The Breach: Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum
In May 1992, the US, Russia, Ukraine, as well as Kazakhstan and Belarus, which also inherited Soviet nuclear weapons, signed a protocol making the latter three countries parties to START I. However, lest the accession to START I be interpreted as a commitment to reduce rather than eliminate nuclear arsenals, Article 5 of what became known as the Lisbon Protocol committed the non-Russian republics to accede to the NPT as nonnuclear weapons states (NNWS) “in the shortest possible time.”1010 Annex to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of July 31, 1991, Signed by the USA, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan in Lisbon on May 24, 1992, 1992; reprinted in Victor Batiouk, Ukraine’s Non-Nuclear Option (New York: UN Institute for Disarmament Research, 1992)
- - - - - - - - - -
https://www.armscontrol.org/node/3289
Basic Timeline and Provisions:July 31, 1991: The United States and the Soviet Union sign START.
Dec. 31, 1991: The Soviet Union officially dissolves, delaying entry into force of START.
May 23, 1992: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the United States sign the Lisbon Protocol.
• Under the protocol, all five states become parties to START.
• Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine promise to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states “in the shortest possible time.”
July 2, 1992: Kazakhstan ratifies START.
Oct. 1, 1992: The U.S. Senate votes to give its advice and consent to ratification of START.
Nov. 4, 1992: The Russian State Duma refuses to exchange START instruments of ratification until Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan accede to the NPT.
Feb. 4, 1993: Belarus ratifies START.
July 22, 1993: Belarus submits its instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
January 14, 1994: The Trilateral Statement is signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk. It allows Ukraine to observe the transfer of weapons from its territory to Russia and the dismantlement of certain systems. It also commits Russia to send some of the uranium extracted from the returned warheads back to Ukraine for fuel.
Feb. 3, 1994: Ukraine ratifies START, rescinding conditions for ratification that it had issued in November 1993.
Feb. 14, 1994: Kazakhstan submits its instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
Dec. 5, 1994: Ukraine submits its instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.
• The five START parties exchange instruments of ratification for START, which enters into force.
April 24, 1995: Kazakhstan transfers its last strategic weapon to Russia.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ratification and Implementation:Belarus:
When the Soviet Union dissolved, the newly-established Republic of Belarus found itself in possession of roughly 800 total nuclear weapons deployed within its borders. Although Russia retained the warhead arming and launch codes, many worried that Belarus might attempt to take control of the weapons. Moreover, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko twice threatened to retain some weapons if NATO deployed nuclear weapons of its own in Poland. However, when a constitutional crisis erupted in November 1996, Lukashenko was finally compelled to finalize the transfers.
Minsk signed the Lisbon Protocol on May 23, 1992, ratified it on Feb. 4, 1993, and deposited its instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state on July 22, 1993. By November 1996, all nuclear warheads in Belarus had been transferred to Russia.
Kazakhstan:
After gaining independence, Kazakhstan, with extensive U.S. technical and financial assistance, disposed of the strategic nuclear weapons that it inherited from the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan’s 1,410 strategic warheads were deployed on several different systems, including SS-18 ICBMs and cruise missiles carried by Bear-H bombers.
Kazakhstan’s parliament ratified START on July 2, 1992. All tactical nuclear weapons had been withdrawn to Russia by January 1992. The parliament approved accession to the NPT on Dec. 13, 1993, and deposited the state’s NPT instrument of ratification on Feb. 14, 1994. The last of the Kazakh-based strategic nuclear weapons were transferred to Russia by April 24, 1995.
Ukraine:
When the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine became the third-largest nuclear weapons power in the world behind the United States and Russia. Ukraine’s 1,900 strategic warheads were distributed among ICBMs, strategic bombers, and air-launched cruise and air-to-surface missiles. Although Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk signed the Lisbon Protocol on May 23, 1992, Ukraine’s process of disarmament was filled with political obstacles. Many Ukrainian officials viewed Russia as a threat and argued that they should keep nuclear weapons in order to deter any possible encroachment from their eastern neighbor. Although the government never gained operational control over the weapons, it declared “administrative control” in June 1992, and claimed in 1993 ownership of the warheads, citing the potential of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium they contained for creating peaceful energy.
A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.
In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.
In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.
So you’ve deliberately blurred the line between the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the sovereignty of any given nation in the world.
***Not really. I see the line at Ukraine’s borders because it’s so stark. But you don’t even see that an invasion is a violation of such an agreement. If there’s any deliberate blurring of lines, it’s from you.
You’re talking around in circles here, dude.
***No I’m not. The ukes were invaded and you don’t even see it as a violation of the Budapest Agreement which wimply calls out the signatories to “respect” Ukraine’s borders.
And Ukraine had no capability to use those nuclear arms even if they wanted to keep them.
***Ukraine has 15 nuke power plants; they have the learnings of Chernobyl; they have plenty of nuke engineers; they had the weapons grade material; and now they have the motivation to build such nukes, seein as how giving them up has invited 2 invasions of their territory and tens of thousands of dead Ukes.
If I had been advising the fledgling Ukrainian government back in the early 1990s I would have told them never to sign onto that deal
***Sumthin we can both agree on.
— because I wouldn’t have any confidence in EITHER nation (the U.S. as much as Russia) to abide by its terms.
***We can still live up to those terms, if we help them restore their borders & sovereignty — repairing the damage might be sumthin no one can do. Russia has invaded twice, over oil & gas reserves, so they’re completely untrustworthy.
They made their decision. Let them live with it.
***We don’t have to betray them. And the display of callous disregard for a country which did the right thing is sickening, you guys are sociopaths.
It’s not my problem, and it’s not a matter that is anything close to a compelling interest for the U.S.
***It’s extremely close compelling for the US because we learnt the lesson of wussy appeasement from 1938 Sudetenland against another tyrant who eventually caused 50 - 60 million deaths; we are pushing the Ukes into a nuke corner where they will develop their own nukes in their existential war — after all, that’s what we did; we need to get nuke nonproliferation correct or every tinhorn dictator will be building nukes; and it is simply the right thing to do, not betray a country that honored a nuke nonproliferation agreement and was invaded as a result of it.
You’re going to compare building spaceships to
***I compared it to building bicycles. That’s how much of a pedestrian intellect you have.
pissing away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on military ventures all over the globe?
***I didn’t, so you just now came up with a straw argument — another classic fallacy.
Get real.
***I am getting real with you and your pedantic pedestrian intellect.
Kevmo: People like you are just bypassed in industries, and you don’t even know it.
AC: What the hell are you talking about?
***I’m talkin’ about my experiences with pedestrian intellects such as yours.
I’m a nationally recognized authority in my area of expertise.
***You’re an anonymous poster on da interwebs. You can’t even put together 2 paragraphs without generating logical fallacies.
Are you?
***Sure, I was.
You can do a Google search on my name and find it on at least a half-dozen publications that are still considered the “state of the practice” in my discipline even a decade after they were published.
***I doubt that, but it’s not like you’re posting such information, nor even that it’s applicable to inductive reasoning. You never learnt how to avoid classic fallacies. That’s the stuff they teach kids in freshman level college classes these days.
Where does that say how Americans get involved?
***Pretty much the same place it says that INVADING the country is a violation of the agreement. Where does it say that America can’t repel the invader to the original borders as outlined in the agreement?
Send some weapons or deploy troops on the ground and provide air cover?
***Show me where that is explicitly disallowed.
Immediate4 UN Security Council meeting. Those asshats can’t tie their own shoes. Why isn’t the UN intervening with troops on the ground, you know the blue helmet rapist and child molesters?
***That’s a pretty good question.
The UN should be abolished.
***It probably will, due to ineffectuality.
It’s worse than the League of Nations was and if you think the world will ever get nuclear nonproliferation correct you’re dreaming.
***I think the USA can get nuclear nonproliferation correct. The help we’ve been sending seems to have effectively warded off the invader into a reconsideration of the first set of invasion plans. The more we keep it conventional, the less likely the Ukes are pushed into a nuke corner where they feel they need to build nukes to guarantee their own sovereignty in their existential war the way we did.
My concern is the US and F’ any other country until we clean up our mess.
***This thing IS our mess. We signed that document; we accepted those nukes.
The “a priori fallacy” is only applicable if someone has decided ahead of time as to what their conclusion is going to be,
***That’s pretty damned close to what she said she did, close enough to call it out as the fallacy it is. Then she tried to uphold it as sound reasoning.
without considering any other particulars
***Sure, people who engage in a priori reasoning “consider” other particulars and whatnot, but the conclusion is pre-drawn. We see this with judges all the time, like the last fed judge who couldn’t even say what a woman is but the dems gonna vote for her anyways.
or pieces of evidence on matters which are explicitly empirical.
***The conclusion is already drawn. They proceed on the evidence with that conclusion already in mind. It is a fallacy.
Looking at America’s track record with foreign military interventions (and their consequences) over the past 20 years and deciding “let’s hold off on doing that for a change”
***Uhh, that is completely inapplicable in this situation due to its uniqueness. Can you name any other country that gave up hundreds of nukes that were abandoned on their countryland and honored the denuke agreement? Nope, because this situation is unique. But the apriorists are saying “we shouldn’t get involved in European squabbles” and then proceed to force that round peg into that square hole of European squabbles without considering the uniqueness of the situation.
is hardly an example of the “a priori fallacy.”
***This situation shows it to be a prime example of such a fallacy. Plus, she has engaged in several other fallacies as well.
This is also notwithstanding the fact “a priori reasoning” in and of itself isn’t fallacious if you’re dealing with truths which aren’t empirical.
***That’s a bunch of gobbledegook. There’s nothing empirical about her statements.
empirical truth noun
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical%20truth#:~:text=Definition%20of%20empirical%20truth,also%20actual%20truth%2C%20contingent%20truth
Definition of empirical truth
: exact conformity as learned by observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally existent things in their actual status and relations
— called also actual truth, contingent truth
... if you’re dealing with truths which aren’t empirical.
Thanks, Sonic. This is a great point, too.
***It’s nonsense.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why FReepers who should be well acquainted with the whole idea of “fake news” based on their experience over the last 5-6 years are suddenly hell-bent on accepting at face value all the nonsense that’s being peddled to them by the media today.
***That is such horse manure. I’m just as skeptical as you are, but you have taken an a priori approach towards reasoning so it led you down a path where you have to deny obvious truths such as... that an invasion by Russia was an obvious violation of the agreement —> but you’ve been so reluctant to yield on that due to your credulous approach towards Russia.
What part of “it isn’t happening and we have a proxy war because no amount of propaganda and sob stories is going to make Americans want to see their family members die in another stupid foreign war across the globe” that you don’t seem to understand?
All this posting and name calling you do has changed no minds. The US is a mess and more war dying isn’t going to cut it because those in charge need to get re-elected.
Give it a rest.
The documents do not lie. Do your handlers know you are doing this poorly?
This is an example of "mind reading", because you have no way of knowing with certitude that our conclusions are "pre-drawn" instead of being informed by how recent historical events have unfolded, by predictions as to what courses of action should or shouldn't be taken (which may not jive with your predictions), and by different moral value judgments as to what the proper course of action should be, among other things.
That’s a bunch of gobbledegook. There’s nothing empirical about her statements.
Thank you for making my point: when one is outside the realm of purely empirical information, "a priori" reasoning is not only not fallacious, it's completely normal. In like manner, there are a class of truths which are outside the realm of empirical or scientific reasoning, so harping on about the "a priori fallacy" when the data set includes non-empirical information (such as one's philosophical axioms, the amoral weighing of what's in the current national interest, and so forth) is a fool's game.
Look at just 2 posts prior to yours: What part of “it isn’t happening and we have a proxy war because no amount of propaganda and sob stories is going to make Americans want to see their family members die in another stupid foreign war across the globe” that you don’t seem to understand?
a priori reasoning
When you see it often enough, it is not “mind reading” that the conclusion is pre-drawn. The evidence speaks for itself.
You've been told this before, but this is just flat-out incorrect; none of those nukes went to America. They went to Russia, because every single one had originally belonged to the Soviet Union.
Thank you for making my point: when one is outside the realm of purely empirical information, “a priori” reasoning is not only not fallacious, it’s completely normal.
***I’ll grant you it falls within the norm but that doesn’t preclude it from being fallacious. She arrived at her conclusion in a priori fashion, that it is not worth getting entangled in a foreign conflict basically because it is not worth getting entangled in a foreign conflict. No amount of reasoning, showing how unique the situation is, how important, that billions of lives were at stake when we DID decide to get involved, etc. would stave her off her pre-drawn conclusion. And now it appears to be your pre-drawn conclusion as well.
In like manner, there are a class of truths which are outside the realm of empirical or scientific reasoning,
***Her conclusion is not within that ‘class of truths’. It is simply an opinion pre-drawn. She then proceeds to fit the square facts she’ll accept into her round hole of reasoning, working backwards.
so harping on about the “a priori fallacy” when the data set includes non-empirical information
***It is a fallacy, plain and simple, because she had her opinion long before she considered the facts, and it colors the way she even considers her facts. That’s why she finds it so difficult to accept that Russia invading is an incredibly obvious violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
(such as one’s philosophical axioms, the amoral weighing of what’s in the current national interest, and so forth) is a fool’s game.
***The fool’s game is engaging in reasoning with such fools who have already made up their mind long before they ever considered facts. Their opinion is based on what they think or feel or want, not on facts. It is simply fallacious.
You’ve been told this before, but this is just flat-out incorrect; none of those nukes went to America. They went to Russia, because every single one had originally belonged to the Soviet Union.
***A point without any real substance, without distinction. It doesn’t MATTER if we received them or didn’t, what matters is that the Ukes gave them up. Nitpicking is a sign that you are running out of argument space. You are simply flat wrong 007, on this set of issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.