"He wasn't," she snapped. "Khrushchev had roaches in his head."
That could explain a few things.
Posted on 02/28/2014 7:52:21 PM PST by annalex
It has to be asked what is in the interest of the Russian people in this context? We have to view the territories populated by ethnic Russians as shared by two peoples: the Russians, a small minority by now, and the Soviets. The latter is "the new socialist community of men" as the Khruschevite propaganda called them. And on that score, it was correct. I wish whatever remains of True Russia, the Russia of the Tsars, all the best. It is for that reason for Putin to fight for sovietized Crimea is not only to fight against the treaties that RF signed; it is not only aggression against the internationally recognized in the present, and presently violated, borders of the sovereign country of Ukraine; it is a further injury to the disappearing Russian nation dealt by the KGB.
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates.
Its a very human story. You cannot but have respect for a widow from a family of military tradition.
Ukraine is less a country than a state of mind. It has what is called in Canada the two solitudes.
Its a bilingual country and needs to embrace its past and its dual heritage.
If Ukrainian nationalists insist on having it their way, they may be left with half a country and they’ve already lost, it appears, the Crimea.
>>Galina Onischenko’s<<
BTW, her name is ethnic-Ukrainian.
Russia can’t let Crimea go — not as a matter of geological reality.
“If Ukrainian nationalists insist on having it their way, they may be left with half a country and they’ve already lost, it appears, the Crimea.”
Half a country is better than no country.
We should respect any military wearing the uniform of their country. Less so a military wearing no identifying marks as was seen now invading the Crimea.
The Sovs do not deserve to be respected. They are an artificial pseudo-ethnic product of artificial selection of 1917-1991 that poison the land they step on.
That already happened when the Soviet Union, that recognized the present and persently violated borders of Ukraine, dissolved and left the Russian Federation as its legal successor. Further, when Ukraine undertook to forego its nukes, that was in express guarantee of Ukrainian sovereignty within the present borders, signed by the Russian Federation.
I, too, wish that Khruschev "with roaches in his head" did not signed over the Crimea to Ukraine, but on the other hand I'd rather have international law respected than another Sov country pop up.
Obviously, the New Ukraine has to deal with the fact that a single largest ethnic minority in their country is Russian speakers. And we have a large ethnic minority that is Spanish speakers. So? How does that impact the issues of national sovereignty?
The Russian Federation has ethnic minorities all over the place, by the way. Putin just opened the door for the dissolution of the RF if the separatist logic is to prevail.
When Ukraine gave up its nukes, the US alongside the Russian Federation took the responsibility of guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The next stage was the signing on January 14, 1994 of the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States under which Ukraine was to destroy all nuclear weapons on its territory, including strategic offensive weapons. Ukraine, Washington and Moscow reached an agreement in January that allowed for the dismantling of Ukraine's 176 Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) ahead of Kiev's formal ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).[3][4] France and China provided unilateral security assurances in the form of diplomatic notes. The missiles—130 SS-18s and 46 SS-24s—carried about 1,800 nuclear warheads altogether.
On December 5, 1994, Ukraine acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. On that same date, the US, Russia and United Kingdom provided security assurances to Ukraine, and the START I Treaty also entered into force.
There are plenty of full-blown Sovs with Ukrainian surnames, too. Mostly in the Ukrainian East and South.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on February, 5, 1994, in Budapest by Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom concerning the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and its security relationship with the signatory countries. According to the memorandum, Russia, the USA, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
- Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
- Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
- Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
- Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
It was, however, never ratified.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was a international treaty signed on February, 5, 1994, in Budapest.The diplomatic document saw signatories make promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine.
The agreement promises to protest Ukraine's borders in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document.
It was an unprecedented case in contemporary international life and international law.
Whether is it legally binding in complex.
'It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement,' says Barry Kellman is a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University's College of Law told Radio Free Europe.
Thanks for the flag. This gives me a better understanding of the issue of Crimea, and what a pleasure to read the work of someone who actually knows how to write.
BTW, please clear this up for me. For the pronunciation of “Sevastopol” is the accent on the second syllable or on the third?
"He wasn't," she snapped. "Khrushchev had roaches in his head."
That could explain a few things.
Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine[5]) were given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[6]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.
In other words, no guaranties and only the most tepid of assurances.
The Sink Emperor wasn't called "Slick Willy" only for his slimy sexual proclivities.
It would be nice if international law were to be respected but it doesn’t always happen. Crimea has been in Russia’s sphere of influence for centuries , and will continue to be for centuries more.
Sevastopol (/ˌsjivæˈstoʊpəlj/[1] or, more usually, /sɨˈvæstəpəl, -pɒl/[citation needed]; Ukrainian and Russian: Севасто́поль; Crimean Tatar: Aqyar; Greek: Σεβαστούπολη, Sevastoupoli)
In English traditional pronunciation it is SeVASTopol. However, the Russians say it SevastOPolj (with a soft L). The Greek original is SevastOOpoli or even SebastOOPoli, the Noble City.
The guarantee is still there, but due to the lack of ratification it is not enforceable by us.
Obviously Obama is not going to do anything. Putin wins the game of chicken easily, and I still think Putin is himself a coward.
The fact remains that for Russia (some abstract, non-existent “Russia”), to claim Crimea back the RF needs to renounce its succession from the USSR and go back to the law system of the Russian Empire. Which I would heartily welcome.
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.