Posted on 04/17/2022 1:04:39 PM PDT by conservative98
Not quite sure what you mean by that and how it relates to my 3 examples.
***By your 3 examples the Chinese are exporting actual workers to do their bidding. That wouldn’t work for America.
The Chinese tried to so something like that here in WV in 2017. $84 billion dollar investment in WV!
***Doesn’t surprise me.
The good news it didn’t go anywhere.
***I remember when everyone was afraid of Japanese investment across the USA. But the Chinese are about 50 to 100 times worse, bigger, and more numerous.
Why was this even being considered? WV historically has anemic levels of instate investment capital. What investment money there is focuses on coal. Now I am not against coal, but there are other things where some investment could trigger another industry here!
***Well, like what? Maybe we could start a private thing to get the ball rolling.
Citation: Chesapeake by James Mitchner
***That’s fiction. I know it MIGHT be factual but there’s nothing to hold Michener accountable to any factual accuracy when he says it’s fiction.
Also, that doesn’t mean I think you’re incorrect in your comment, it’s just that since the citation originally comes from a work of fiction it is not trustworthy.
The question is will the obvious growing fault lines in the main line power structure drive them to so something in haste
***China knows they’ll have to make some military moves eventually. This is prime slot time for such action, because Biden won’t do a damned thing about it.
Well, they are numerous!
There were a lot of squandered opportunities here. For example, there should have been a silicon wafer industry here. There wasn’t! Despite much of the state being on top of high-quality (SiO2-wise) sandstones used by the now defunct WV glass industry.
I didn’t see most of them personally since I was gone from the state for almost 40 years. Retired back here in 2018. I heard about a lot of them through my brother, father and friends. I always got Charleston papers too, later just online subscriptions.
Working on something right now, investment if it comes will be two possible source we are mulling over:
1. if USG then NSF,
2. if private then from Texas or Boston.
And no I can’t talk about it!
I prefer to purge.
New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Oregon and Washington will be a good start
That’s a damn fine post. Hadn’t thought about it from that angle.
Every word you posted true.
Saw it first hand at the University my oldest son graduated from in 2019.
***Well then, complain to the UN. Here is their language: Registration Number 52241 Title -- Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession....
The Budapest Memorandum is a MEMORANDUM in connection with Ukraine's accession. Ukraine's accession is separate and apart, and is not a side agreement between Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the UK. There appears to be 191 parties to the treaty which entered into force on 1 March 1968.
The Budapest MEMORANDUM wasn't a treaty. It was not an accession to a signed international United Nations, ratified nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It was not an accession to anything. It was a side agreement between four parties giving Ukraine non-binding assurances, to include bringing any act of aggression against Ukraine before the UN Security Council.
I can see how you mistook a MEMORANDUM by four nations to be the Ukraine accession instrument. It is probably the only accession instrument in history in which the acceding nation welcomed itself in the third person, stating, "Welcoming the Accession of Ukraine...."
Here is the United Nations Model Instrument of Accession. See if you can notice any differences in form.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/modelinstruments/model_instrument_of_accession-English.pdf
MODEL INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION(To be signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs)
ACCESSION _____________
WHEREAS the [title of treaty, convention, agreement, etc.] was [concluded, adopted, opened for signature, etc.] at [place] on [date],
NOW THEREFORE I, [name and title of the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs] declare that the Government of [name of State], having considered the above-mentioned [treaty, convention, agreement, etc.], accedes to the same and undertakes faithfully to perform and carry out the stipulations therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument of accession at [place] on [date].
[Signature]
The rest of your bullshiite is just blah blah blah...
You like blah blah blah. But you seem allergic to Minsk I and II.
Here's the text of Minsk I and II. As Ukraine violated the ceasefire agreement, you would like to go back to the status quo ante, two nations at war. Oh, never mind, they are already there.
MINSK I PROTOCOL (1 September 2014)
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UA_140905_MinskCeasfire_en.pdf
Original official document in Russian only.
Annex I to the letter dated 24 February 2015 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council[Original: Russian]
Protocol on the outcome of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group on joint steps aimed at the implementation of the Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine, P. Poroshenko, and the initiatives of the President of the Russian Federation, V. Putin
Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations in Minsk on 1 September 2014, the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of representatives of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps:
1. Ensure the immediate bilateral cessation of the use of weapons.
2. Ensure monitoring and verification by OSCE of the regime of non-use of weapons.
3. Implement decentralization of power, including by enacting the Law of Ukraine on the interim status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Law on Special Status).
4. Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian State border and verification by OSCE, along with the establishment of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5. Immediately release all hostages and unlawfully detained persons.
6. Enact a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
7. Continue an inclusive national dialogue.
8. Adopt measures aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in Donbass.
9. Ensure the holding of early local elections in accordance with the Law of Ukraine on the interim status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Law on Special Status).
10. Remove unlawful military formations and military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries, from the territory of Ukraine.
11. Adopt a programme for the economic revival of Donbass and the resumption of vital activity in the region.
12. Provide personal security guarantees for the participants of the consultations.
Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:
(Signed) Heidi Tagliavini,
Ambassador(Signed) L. D. Kuchma,
Second President of Ukraine(Signed) M. Y. Zurabov,
Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine(Signed) A. W. Zakharchenko
(Signed) I. W. Plotnitski
- - - - - - - - - -
https://comw.org/pda/fulltext/UNSC-Res-2202-Minsk.pdf
The Minsk Agreement of 12 February 2015 (MINSK II) followed the Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014 (MINSK I)
MINSK II AGREEMENT, 12 February 2015 (as endorsed at UN Security Council, 17 Feb 2015)
ANNEX IPackage of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements
Minsk, 12 February 2015
1. Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and its strict implementation as of 15 February 2015, 12 a.m. local time.
2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides by equal distances in order to create a security zone of at least 50 km wide from each other for the artillery systems of calibre of 100 and more, a security zone of 70 km wide for MLRS and 140 km wide for MLRS “Tornado-S”, Uragan, Smerch and Tactical Missile Systems (Tochka, Tochka U):
— for the Ukrainian troops: from the de facto line of contact;
— for the armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine : from the line of contact according to the Minsk Memorandum of Sept. 19th, 2014;
The withdrawal of the heavy weapons as specified above is to start on day 2 of the ceasefire at the latest and be completed within 14 days.
The process shall be facilitated by the OSCE and supported by the Trilateral Contact Group.
3. Ensure effective monitoring and verification of the ceasefire regime and the withdrawal of heavy weapons by the OSCE from day 1 of the withdrawal, using all technical equipment necessary, including satellites, drones, radar equipment, etc.
4. Launch a dialogue, on day 1 of the withdrawal, on modalities of local elections in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” as well as on the future regime of these areas based on this law.
Adopt promptly, by no later than 30 days after the date of signing of this document a Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine specifying the area enjoying a special regime, under the Law of Ukraine “On interim self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, based on the line of the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.
5. Ensure pardon and amnesty by enacting the law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
6. Ensure release and exchange of all hostages and unlawfully detained persons, based on the principle “all for all”. This process is to be finished on the day 5 after the withdrawal at the latest.
7. Ensure safe access, delivery, storage, and distribution of humanitarian assistance to those in need, on the basis of an international mechanism.
8. Definition of modalities of full resumption of socioeconomic ties, including social transfers such as pension payments and other payments (incomes and revenues, timely payments of all utility bills, reinstating taxation within the legal framework of Ukraine).
To this end, Ukraine shall reinstate control of the segment of its banking system in the conflict-affected areas and possibly an international mechanism to facilitate such transfers shall be established.
9. Reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine throughout the conflict area, starting on day 1 after the local elections and ending after the comprehensive political settlement (local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) to be finalized by the end of 2015, provided that paragraph 11 has been implemented in consultation with and upon agreement by representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under monitoring of the OSCE. Disarmament of all illegal groups.
11. Carrying out constitutional reform in Ukraine with a new constitution entering into force by the end of 2015 providing for decentralization as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in line with measures as set out in the footnote until the end of 2015. [Note]
12. Based on the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections will be held in accordance with relevant OSCE standards and monitored by OSCE/ODIHR.
13. Intensify the work of the Trilateral Contact Group including through the establishment of working groups on the implementation of relevant aspects of the Minsk agreements. They will reflect the composition of the Trilateral Contact Group.
Note
Such measures are, according to the Law on the special order for local selfgovernment in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions:
— Exemption from punishment, prosecution and discrimination for persons involved in the events that have taken place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Right to linguistic self-determination;
— Participation of organs of local self-government in the appointment of heads of public prosecution offices and courts in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Possibility for central governmental authorities to initiate agreements with organs of local self-government regarding the economic, social and cultural development of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— State supports the social and economic development of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Support by central government authorities of cross-border cooperation in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions with districts of the Russian Federation;
— Creation of the people's police units by decision of local councils for the maintenance of public order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— The powers of deputies of local councils and officials, elected at early elections, appointed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by this law, cannot be early terminated.
Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:
Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini
Second President of Ukraine, L. D. Kuchma
Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, M. Yu. Zurabov
A.W. Zakharchenko
I.W. Plotnitski
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANNEX IIDeclaration of the President of the Russian Federation, the President of Ukraine, the President of the French Republic and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in support of the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”, adopted on 12 February 2015 in Minsk
The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, the President of the French Republic, François Hollande, and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr. Angela Merkel, reaffirm their full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. They firmly believe that there is no alternative to an exclusively peaceful settlement. They are fully committed to undertake all possible individual and joint measures to this end.
Against this background, leaders endorse the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements adopted and signed on February 12, 2015 by all signatories who also signed Minsk Protocol of September 5, 2014 and Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014. Leaders will contribute to this process and will use their influence on relevant parties to facilitate the implementation of that Package of Measures.
Germany and France will provide technical expertise for the restoration of the segment of the banking system in the conflict affected areas, possibly through the establishment of an international mechanism to facilitate social transfers.
Leaders share the conviction that improved cooperation between the EU, Ukraine and Russia will be conducive to the crisis settlement. To this end, they endorse the continuation of trilateral talks between the EU, Ukraine and Russia on energy issues in order to achieve follow-up stages to the gas winter package.
They also support trilateral talks between the EU, Ukraine and Russia in order to achieve practical solutions to concerns raised by Russia with regards to the implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement between Ukraine and the EU.
Leaders remain committed to the vision of a joint humanitarian and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific based upon full respect for international law and the OSCE principles.
Leaders will remain committed to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. To this end, they agree to establish an oversight mechanism in the Normandy format which will convene at regular intervals, in principle on the level of senior officials from the foreign ministries.
It is nothing more than a Memorandum of assurances. It assured that in case of Ukraine becoming a victim of aggression, immediate United Nations Security Counsil action to provide assistance would be sought. That is what entered into force in 1994. The matter was taken up before the UN Security Council which did not authorize anyone to use military force against Russia.***That’s fine. No one would be using military force against Russia because all the fighting will be on Ukrainian soil. If Russia doesn’t want a fight, they can pull back to the borders that THEY assured in that agreement THEY signed.
Right. Fighting against the Russian army would not be using military force against Russia. I suppose the Russians blowing up an American military base in Europe would not justify an American response. Your juvenile nonsense may work in your momma's basement, but it does not work in real war.
The law of war is passe, as many conflicts today involve parties who are not recognized nations, such as al Qaeda. The applicable law is the Law of International Armed Conflict (LOIAC).
The parties to the ongoing international armed conflict are Ukraine and Russia. You would like to add the United States as a party.
The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, issued by the United States Department of the Navy, gives a slight hint about certain behavior and belligerent parties. Regarding the law of neutrality,
7.5.1 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Warship or Military Aircraft. Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft acquire enemy character and may be treated by a belligerent as enemy warships and military aircraft when engaged in either of the following acts:1. Taking a direct part in the hostilities on the side of the enemy.
2. Acting in any capacity as a naval or military auxiliary to the enemy's armed forces.
(paragraph 8.2.1 describes the actions that may be taken against enemy warships and military aircraft.)
7.5.2 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Merchant Vessel or Civil Aircraft. Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft acquire enemy character and may be treated by a belligerent as enemy merchant vessels or civil aircraft when engaged in either of the following acts:
1. Operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment, or directIon.
2. Resisting an attempt to establish identity, including visit and search.
(Paragraph 8.2.2 describes the actions that may be taken against enemy merchant ships and civil aircraft.)
[...]
8.2.1 Combatants
Combatants are subject to attack at any time during hostilities unless they are hors de combat (i.e., “out of the fight” due to detention by friendly forces; defenseless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds, or sickness; or clearly expressing an intention to surrender; provided in all cases that the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape). (See also paragraph 5.4.1.)
So, you want to be a combatant. You want to be a party to an international armed conflict currently being waged by Russia and Ukraine.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/terrorism-ihl-210705.htm
2. Who is a combatant?International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.
Of course, you may feel that a nuclear war that kills millions is just fine if you consider it justified. As you approach an intersection, you have a green light. However, you notice a semi approaching the intersection at a high rate of speed and not slowing down. Knowing you have the right of way, you proceed, confident in your right to be stupid. Your action is justified. You are crushed like a bug, but the truck driver was in the wrong. You will be forever known as the guy who stood up to the speeding truck that was running a red light.
No one is reading your longwinded bullshiite. You have justified fighting Russians on soil they have invaded is fighting Russia. Then there’s nothing stopping us Americans from invading every last country on the planet, threatening them with nukes, and claiming that by fighting Americans they fight America.
It’s almost like Vietnam never happened in your mind. Whatever. You’ve got some kind of psychosis I’m not interested in dealing with.
Simple enough:
Ukraine’s accession to the TREATY on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
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.