Rubio pushes back on DeSantis remarks: Russia-Ukraine war ‘not a territorial dispute’

The Hill ^ | 03/14/2023 | OLAFIMIHAN OSHIN

[ChicagoConservative27]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Tuesday that the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war is not a “territorial dispute,” pushing back against remarks made by his home state Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on the matter.

In a questionnaire sent out by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson to potential 2024 presidential candidates, DeSantis said “becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not among the United States’ “vital national interests.”

During an appearance on the “Hugh Hewitt Show” on Tuesday, Rubio was asked about those remarks from DeSantis.

“Well, it’s not a territorial dispute in the sense that any more than it would be a territorial dispute if the United States decided that it wanted to invade Canada or take over the Bahamas,” Rubio told Hewitt during Tuesday’s episode. “Just because someone claims something doesn’t mean it belongs to them.”

[BroJoeK]

"Nato is building a iron curtain around Russia, and moving it ever closer to Russian territory."

If Putin had joined NATO as planned in 1994, that whole idea would be an absurdity, since NATO would be pledged to defend Russia too.

But Putin was more devoted to building back the old Russian Empire, and so NATO became an obstacle in his path to glory.

[BroJoeK]

"If he means “send no more aid” he’s just guaranteed a collapse of NATO, a Chinese move on Taiwan, a massive arms race in Europe and an eventual major nuclear war that may well not be started by Russia."

Is that all?

[BroJoeK]

"And anyone who doesn’t think that this centuries old blood feud has nothing to do with all of this butchery, carnage, and mass murder, is a fool."

Arguably, Stalin killed more Ukrainians than Hitler did, so no sane Ukrainian wants the Russian boot on his or her neck.

The issue here is the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by the US, UK, Russia, Ukraine & others, which was intended to guarantee Ukraine's security, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Is America's written word worth the paper it's printed on?

[BroJoeK]

"Yeah, and when somebody else disputes the claim, then...well...we have a dispute.
If the thing is territory then we have a territorial dispute."

A genuine territorial dispute was the 1858 "Pig War" between the US and UK over the boundary line between Washington State and British Vancouver.
It's called the Pig War because the shooting of a stray pig ignited it, and the poor pig was the war's only casualty.

The US-UK border dispute was settled in 1871 by arbitration from the German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm I.

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the intention of taking the entire country. That is not a "border dispute."

[BroJoeK]

"Well, Gee, Thank you, Bill Clinton. Ironic a draft-dodger got us into this mess."

So far I've not seen anybody argue that the world would be better off in Ukraine had kept all its old nukes.
And not just Ukraine, also Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Of course, like everything our Pres. Slick touched, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum left lots of room for later interpretations -- you know, how it all depends on what the definition of "is" is?

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“directly involved in persuading Ukraine to return all the nukes in its territory to Russia saying we would defend them for doing so.

TRUE.
This invasion would NEVER have started if Putin only had honored the 1994 Budapest Declaration’s commitment to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and national unity.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprised of political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

These three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave individual assurances in separate documents.

HOWEVER, PUTIN DOESN’T HONOR HIS COMMITMENTS.

The Treaty on “Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine nuclear arsenal to Russia and Russia AGREED to:

-Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the EXISTING BORDERS.
-Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
-Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
-Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory 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”.
-Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
-Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

IT IS WELL KNOWN GLOBALLY that PUTIN could stop this INVASION any time by withdrawing military troops.
He won’t.

Putin just keeps letting those dead bodies pile up. It’s not like he cares about the Russian population or military.

[Paladin2]

Popular words don’t make it right.

[Clutch Martin]

I am not in disagreement with recent history nor am I ignorant of 20th century history between the two countries and I also understand the six or seven hundred years before that.

It is all germaine, Americans tend to not recognize anything past our own historical timeline. The history of Europe is entanglements fraught with conflicts, power plays, protectorates, vassal states, religious wars, treaties, charters. That’s just on the continent.

To this day, in the British Isles there remains hatred amongst the peoples that has lasted for a thousand years, people don’t tend to forget these things. We in America haven’t experienced anything nearly as historical. Nor as bloody.

Still waters and malevolence run deep. And it seems very difficult for people over here to even begin to understand that it is a component of the mind and make up of European culture. When tempers flare this ancient history rears its ugly head.

[MalPearce]

Don’t bother reminding those folks of inconvenient little things like signing binding and very explicitly worded international treaties, and the reputational damage caused by breaking them.

They’re obsessed with what one hick American civil servant said to the Soviet Union in relation to the status of east Germany against an INTACT USSR... a statement that’s very well documented but never made it past the first draft of the written and signed agreements between the USA and USSR. (Even Gorbachev himself torpedoed the BS about James Baker’s statements).

And yet they can’t see, if they think that INFORMAL statement holds massive binding weight, then by definition the MULTIPLE agreements Russia made to the US, international community and especially to the three nuclear-equipped SSRs, are MORE binding, and their violation is MORE damaging.

Putin’s mouthpieces very rarely mention:

1940s: UN Charter, the right to not be invaded.
1970s: Helsinki, the right not to be invaded by the USSR.
1980s: Perestroika, and devolved powers to the SSRs.
1990s: Belovezha Accords extending Helsinki rights to the independent states.
1990s: Budapest Memorandum where Russia, three ex-SSRs, USA and UK all agreed a MUTUAL DEFENCE agreement to the effect of, if any of those three states got invaded they had the RIGHT to go to both the UN AND to the Budapest signatories for redress.

Well, Russia broke Budapest repeatedly even before annexing Crimea, but invading Crimea after effectively converting the Ukraine President into a Russian agent went so far beyond “gray area” that Ukraine took it to the UK and US. Both countries stuck to the agreement by providing Ukraine with the means to defend itself.

Belarus is obviously acting outside the spirit of the Budapest agreement by hosting Russia’s invading forces, but at least Belarus isn’t actively violating the agreement by sending boots into Ukraine on Russia’s side. In international law, it has obligations to Ukraine as well as to Russia.

If Belarus breaks Budapest properly by sending its troops into Ukraine, then it’ll be a bit like how Russia keeps threatening ludicrously high tsunami nukes off the coast of the UK if NATO boots land on the ground.

It comes to something where Belarus’ dictator, with easily the worst reputation of any European leader, baulks at the idea of openly violating the Budapest agreement. He knows it’d be right up there with, say, a founding NATO member invoking Article 5 after being quite obviously attacked by a foreign military, and having even its closest ally in the alliance sit on their hands.

[MalPearce]

It was actually filed with the United Nations as a formal treaty, by Ukraine, on 2nd October 2014. Note, the REASON for the agreement was to enable Ukraine to dispose of the nuclear weapons on its territory, something that Russia could do and it couldn’t. At no point in the treaty does it EVER say those nukes belonged to Russia - because that would’ve been untrue.

The nukes were assets of the defunct USSR, but in the 80s USSR maintenance and storage of such equipment was devolved to the Ukrainian SSR. So the nukes were actually Ukraine’s to dispose of as it saw fit.

Ukraine could’ve attempted to decommission the weapons itself, or ask any other country with the capability to do it for them, or even flogged them off on the international black market.

Russia had already done deals with 2 other ex-SSRs to take the nukes off their hands but the deal was one-sided. Ukraine reasoned, quite rightly, that it shouldn’t just hand over a bunch of nuclear weapons to another country without some kind of quid-pro-quo.

Rather brilliantly, Russia agreed that this was a fair deal. So the deal didn’t just apply to Ukraine, it applied retrospectively to Belarus and Khazakstan. Russia got their nukes. In return, all three ex-SSRs PLUS the UK, USA and Russia guaranteed the provisions of the Belovezha Accords and went further - invasion of any of those three countries would be an “article 5” moment in geopolitics.

The end result was the Budapest Memorandum.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

“Our Pres. Slick signed it but did not submit it to Congress for approval.”

True, but it didn’t seem to need to be approved by Congress at the time. It was a statement of good intent and cordiality between Russia and the other states, with the USA and UK acting as guarantors in the event that the agreement got violated.

At the time of its signing there was every indication that the future development of Russia post-USSR was not based on the concept of a “sphere of influence” imposed on other countries by sheer force; the CIS was far more like the EEC than the USSR.

Drawing a line on the USSR conquest era and moving forward was part and parcel of the Budapest agreement - as was the reduction (and in fact ABANDONMENT) of Cold War military relics.

It’s only the resurgence of totalitarian imperialism in Russian “intelligentsia” that led to Putin repeatedly undermining Budapest, stretching its compliance to breaking point before materially violating it in 2014. Hence, Ukraine filed the agreement with the UN to remind the UN that Russia didn’t just violate something like a James Baker off-the-cuff remark; it violated a set of binding assurances issued by Russia to Ukraine that had wider obligations in the West.

[BroJoeK]

Paladin2: "Popular words don’t make it right."

The 16th Amendment is not just "popular words".
It's part of the US Constitution.

You remember the Constitution, right?

[BroJoeK]

"Still waters and malevolence run deep.
And it seems very difficult for people over here to even begin to understand that it is a component of the mind and make up of European culture.
When tempers flare this ancient history rears its ugly head."

Sure, I'm only saying there's no need to refer back to ancient history when more recent history explains things well enough, specifically the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for giving up Ukraine's nuclear weapons.
The US, UK and Russia all promised to defend Ukraine and now Russia has invaded.

Is America's written commitment worth the paper it's printed on?

[BroJoeK]

"In return, all three ex-SSRs PLUS the UK, USA and Russia guaranteed the provisions of the Belovezha Accords and went further - invasion of any of those three countries would be an “article 5” moment in geopolitics."

There's no doubt, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum commits the US, UK and Russia to help with Ukraine's defense.
It has no Article 5 and does not define our obligations, but for sure, if we walk away from it, that act will negatively effect every other treaty and commitment the US has made.

[Clutch Martin]

“...there’s no need to refer back to ancient history when more recent history explains things well enough”

The whole picture explains everything.

It’s interesting to note that after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, Academia acknowledged by the early ‘20s that the Treaty of Versailles had put Germany into dire financial straits which ultimately gave rise to the NSDAP.

It was also noted after World War II that when the Nazi’s marched into the Ukraine they were greeted as conquering heroes over the Soviet. The SS marched in and started stringing Ukrainians up on piano wire and began routinely executing the populace carte blanche.

It is speculated by Academia (again post war), that if Hitler had outfitted the Ukrainians and turned them East they would have gladly helped extinguish the Soviets, and may have led that theater of operations to a successful conclusion.

Again, the Ukrainians felt the hammer of Stalinist dominance and it shook them to the core. That’s also recent history that they will not soon forget.

The Ukrainians not wanting a three-peat pushed the NATO boundaries as far as they could before they got a reaction from the “Soviet” Putin. Call it what you will Putin is still a Soviet at heart.

[dfwgator]

Jets vs Sharks

[MalPearce]

Did the collapse of the USSR affect Russia in the same way?

Glasnost and Perestroika happened because the USSR was collapsing economically. A lot of oligarchs whipped some serious coin in the late 80s and early 90s.

The Belovezha and Budapest agreements didn’t hurt Moscow half as much as Moscow was already being hurt by its own leaders, elites, and kleptocrats. The Soviet Union collapsed from inside. Russia was hollowed out by Russians.

You can’t compare the treaties at the end of the Cold War with the treaty of Versailles.

[BroJoeK]

Clutch Martin: "It’s interesting to note that after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, Academia acknowledged by the early ‘20s that the Treaty of Versailles had put Germany into dire financial straits which ultimately gave rise to the NSDAP."

John Maynard Keynes was key in spreading that particular lie, and German politicians like young Adolf Hitler incorporated it into their "stab in the back" propaganda.

The truth is quite different and includes:

1. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was no harsher on Germany than Germany had been on defeated Belgium or Russia.
   Defeated Germans had every reason to expect the same level of punishment meted out on them as they themselves inflicted on countries they conquered.

2. However, German propaganda in 1918 did not tell the German people that they had been thoroughly defeated on the battlefield.
   Germans only understood that no foreign armies had entered Germany and so believed Germany deserved a more accommodating peace treaty -- the "Peace without Victory" promised by US President Wilson, not the reparations inflicted by Versailles.

3. In fact, Germans only paid the full annual reparations for the first year, and that was the root cause of their early 1920s runaway inflation.

4. After the first year of actual reparations, future years were paid by borrowed money, from western banks, mainly Americans.
   In other words, the German Weimar government borrowed money from Americans to pay off reparations to France & Britain who used those payments to repay their war-loans from American banks.

5. That whole processes ended in 1929, when American banks refused to loan Germans any more money, which ended German payments to Britain & France, which ended British & French payments to American banks, which brought on the financial crash of October 1929.

6. The 1929 financial crash lead to the Great Depression which was instrumental in raising the obscure NSDAP to prominence in German politics.

Clutch Martin: "The Ukrainians not wanting a three-peat pushed the NATO boundaries as far as they could before they got a reaction from the “Soviet” Putin.
Call it what you will Putin is still a Soviet at heart."

It's critical to remember here that in 1992 both Russia and Ukraine, along with a dozen other eastern European countries, were on a path to NATO membership.
In due time, many of those countries became NATO members, while others, like Russia and Ukraine maintained friendly relations with NATO well into the early 2000s.

But at some point, Vlad the Invader decided that instead of joining NATO, which would have guaranteed Russia's security, what he wanted to do instead was reconquer the old Russian Empire, especially Ukraine, and that, naturally, made NATO his enemy.
And, also naturally, the more aggressive Vlad became, the more eager Ukrainians were to find allies against Vlad, especially NATO.

[Paladin2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Clutch Martin]

I attended a lecture series out of Harvard at NDU, the Wilsonian doctrine crushed Germany financially, the 1929 depression exacerbated the financial calamity.

[BroJoeK]

Clutch Martin: "I attended a lecture series out of Harvard at NDU..."

Hmmmmmmmmmm................

Clutch Martin: "the Wilsonian doctrine crushed Germany financially... "

That's nonsense because, first, Pres. Wilson's 14 points said nothing about reparations -- zero, zip, nada about reparations.
So it wasn't the "Wilson doctrine" which allegedly "crushed Germany".
Rather, reparations were insisted on by the Brits and especially the French, who had suffered the most.
Wilson went along with them to get their support for his 14 points, especially the League of Nations.

Second, the reparations were not "crushing" in any real sense, but were used for propaganda purposes and to blame for Weimar Germany's 1922 wildly inflationary fiscal policies.

If we translate the 1920s numbers to today's values, the German economy (GDP) then was roughly $2 trillion per year and the US GDP about double that.
Today German GDP is around $4 trillion and the US GDP is $25 trillion.
The Versailles imposed reparations, in today's dollars, totaled $2 trillion, which is about the size of the German national debt today.

Originally, Weimar Germany was required to pay about $50 billion per year, in today's values, and they actually made one solid payment.
Every other payment was made with borrowed money, mainly from American banks.
In 1924 the Dawes plan reduced payments to $20 billion.
So, the Weimar government actually paid around $400 billion total, nearly all but the first $50 billion with borrowed money.

The 1929 financial crash was triggered by US banks refusing to loan Weimar Germany any more money, so Weimar stopped making reparations payments and the French & Brits stopped making payments on their war-loans from the United States.

Clutch Martin: "the 1929 depression exacerbated the financial calamity."

Arguably, the Great Depression was caused by the 1929 financial collapse which followed American banks refusing to loan Weimar Germany any more money to pay their reparations to France & Britain.