Posted on 05/27/2014 2:50:10 PM PDT by tcrlaf
Edited on 05/27/2014 2:59:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Petro Poroshenko, the newly elected president of Ukraine, inherits a low-grade civil war against separatists backed by Russia, an economy rapidly descending into recession and a fragmented political system in which most power lies with a lame-duck, unrepresentative parliament. But as he sees it, he does have one thing going for him: For the moment, at least, a decisive majority of Ukrainians are behind him.
“This is the first presidential election when all the regions of Ukraine had the same winner,” he told me Monday night, in his first interview since winning a clear majority in a crowded first-round ballot. “You can consider it a referendum. Ninety-six percent of Ukrainians voted for the unity of the country. Eighty-five percent supported a candidate for European integration. So the president has a unique chance to unite the country and has a level of support which he never had before.”
Poroshenko may be overstating his case. In two eastern Ukrainian provinces that lean toward Russia, most people were unable to vote because of disruption by the separatist militias that Moscow backs. But he did defeat candidates representing pro-Russian parties across the Russian-speaking regions — he even won a majority among the 6,000 people from occupied Crimea who managed to vote. The aggression of Russsian President Vladimir Putin may have tipped a decisive majority of Ukrainians toward support for a unified country that seeks economic integration with the West.
If so, it will be a political tailwind that Poroshenko badly needs. As president, the 48-year-old billionaire businessman, who made his fortune manufacturing chocolate, will have direct authority only over defense and foreign affairs. His first challenge will be to rebuild a demoralized and decrepit Ukrainian army on the fly while trying to eliminate the threat posed by the heavily armed mix of militants and Russian agents holding key infrastructure in the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.
For that, the new president thinks he will need more help than he has been getting from the United States. “I don’t have the impression that [sanctions] are strong enough — I think more aggression is possible,” he told me, speaking softly and fingering a string of beads after a long post-election day. “And when aggression starts, no sanctions help.”
Yup, I don't think folks here need to worry. Obama seems to agree with them.
Obama shows no inclination to give the Ukrainians military aid.
I think they already have something like that, hence the Russkies aren't having as easy a time as they thought.
IOW, we screwed Ukraine and deceived them to give up their nukes, and now they’re being invaded by the Reds and it’s not our problem.
I am for it, I see that Free Republics Putin fan club is up in arms which is good. Whatever helps frustrate Russian imperialism is good for us and cheaper than a nuclear war down the line. I am against giving blank checks to foreign dictators for vague humanitarian needs, but giving money to Israel or Ukraine directly serves our security interests.
this guy is a billionaire...let him write the checks...
Yeah, you can pretty much judge from their reactions what is good, and what is not.
"We" didn't screw Ukraine. The only way that "we" do anything is by treaty in accordance with our Constitution, and "we" never did such a thing regarding Ukraine. I believe that if you study the Budapest Memorandum carefully, you'll understand that it was neither intended nor represented as a military commitment to Ukraine. But even if it had been, our Constitution trumps the unratified signature of our head of state.
“but giving money to Israel or Ukraine directly serves our security interests.”
They can respond too you know. In response to our actions, Russia has already established a trade relationship and possible military alliance with China. They agreed to a 30 year gas deal, using gas which likely was intended to supply Europe. The military alliance has purposely been kept vague but could involve military technology, mutual defense agreements, intel exchanges, etc. Just imagine Chinese tech on Russian airframes and China acquiring sub & carrier technology. They agreed to abandon the dollar and use common currency, likely the yuan. They also agreed to sell Iran between 4 and 8 nuclear reactors and all of the technology. If they want to toy with us, they could even arm our middle east adversaries. Just imagine Al Qaeda or Hezbolla armed with state of the art manpads or anti-tank rockets?
Still think toying with them will not affect our security interests?
They are already doing or starting what you listed,
so we should help our friends or who should be
our friends, as a 1st line of defense..
‘’but giving money to Israel or Ukraine directly serves our security interests.’’
AMEN—And the rich guys there are helping army some with
there money, they need help with good military stuff to
acquire . and not just mres. Like sell them all the
warthogs our goofy bunch is shutting down,, sell them
all the ammo our nut bunch destroys, all at bargain
discount, to be worked out later.
Like trade. And continuous sat and intel help
to shut down terrorists.And unlease drilling here,
let coal plants run, unleash gas shipments
to EU, will drop prices like a rock, and putlerturd will
be found in ditch as the bleep bleep big gas station with
its help living iv\n cement cubicles in parking lot
goes broke.............Ed
Ukraine is already awash in guns, and has been..
That said, it’s one those “When owning a gun is criminal offense, only the criminals will have guns” kinda country’s. and they have LOTS of criminals.
Per Wiki, there is a gun registry, handguns are sparse (legally), citizens are not allowed to own rifled weapons, and only limited types of “hunting weapons” are allowed.
And this in the most violent European state, BEFORE the troubles began. The mafia’s ruled much of the country, not the central government, or were often one and the same.
You just described Russia, Russian.
If by "we" you mean not you, then, sure. But if by stupid President Clinton, then yes, he screwed Ukraine and we screw Ukraine by extension by not honoring our word, even after having them disarm so they can be invaded.
Luckily, though, I think the Russkies may actually back off, since they might have underestimated how much the average Ukrainian, even the Russian-speaking ones in the East, are unwilling to be enslaved. If I were President, of if it was a President Cruz, we'd arm them in a minute. But, with God's help, I think the Ukrainians might be able to handle things on our own, even without us backstabbing Americans.
even without us backstabbing Americans
YES MORE POWER TO THEM—We could at least help then gat all
their mothballed tanks, aircraft , etc going, spend a little, Geez the Japanese are lending them 40 billion
at practically no interes. we can do better as our
fed reserve owns the printing press.And our dummies
waste it on agw and buying voters, while losing our
security and becomong weaker...
A [Presidential] sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (
1) in foreign policy,
(2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces,
(3) from a prior act of Congress, or
(4) from a prior treaty. THEN, Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress
Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements.
**Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution.
Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.
Repeal
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law
As for the Russians appearing to back off, I agree with Stratfor's George Friedman, who asserts that Moscow understands that Ukraine as it is currently configured is unstable, and that Russia can continue to dominate Ukraine without the mess of occupying all of it. That is an interesting take.
The only way that the United States of America can be compelled to military action is by treaty; no other instrument obligates us to defend another nation. It is a good thing that Ukraine was not admitted to NATO, which would have committed us to its defense by extension of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is astounding to observe so many people anxious to rush into war over a conflict that is none of our business and also beyond our present reach. Past empires were destroyed by such late-stage adventurism.
My best understanding is the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense in the U.S. than international law. These distinctions of procedure and terminology are not to affect the binding status of accords under international law. So, actually the Budapest is binding in international law.
“The ‘Budapest Memorandum’ follows the Helsinki Final Act repeating the provisions. Also, there many sources of international law that mandate Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, i.e. provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter.
There are 3 forms under U.S. law:
1. congressional-executive agreements process: majority both Houses
2. sole-executive agreements process: President alone
3. traditional treaty process requiring Senate consent by a two-thirds vote
Also, there is a difference between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws!!!
But, all three classes are considered treaties under international law.
The President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. The congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements have been common throughout U.S. history and considered valid by Supreme Court.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=708243
ANYWAY: It is so unfortunate that the Ukraine basically made it self so very vulnerable by accommodating and trusting the other nations that entered the Budapest agreement
BTW, I ABSOLUTELY deeply respect the wisdom of Always a marine, Grettings_Puny_Humans, Hubel458.
I firmly believe the U.S. is an exceptional nation. But, I do believe the U.S. has not acted in a responsible fashion towards Ukraine. Putin has recognized & exploited our weakness in international affairs. Under the Obama Administration, I’m afraid this is NOT exactly the best time for our international friends to be reliant upon us.
Please forgive:
1) if I have overlooked anyone that supports & prays for Ukraine
2) my typos.
My mom is 94 yrs old with Alzheimer so I have little sleep.
Under the Constitution, only a ratified treaty supersedes the Constitution itself. If we were to allow “international law” to trump our own, we would cease to be a sovereign nation. Those safeguards were written for good reason!
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.