Posted on 06/21/2024 11:45:07 AM PDT by JonPreston
“So, Russia should be able to run all over eastern Europe as it pleases?”
No one is running over Eastern Europe, so let’s put that to bed. The Neocons wanted a war in Ukraine, and Russia provided that to them, like it or not.
Yes, and how they resemble each otherš±
And the ancient Breughel picture is notable insofar, as that the tower is already crumbling at the bottom, in spite of it being unfinished at the topā¦
The British are lucky to have Mr Farage, who helped them leave the EU(ssr), and I like him for his masterful skills as an orator, his quick wit and his sense of humor,too. The ādamp ragā comment to Van Rompuy really had me in stitchesš¤£
He also doesnāt have too much of an animus against my people - contrary to the people at forums like arrse.co.uk. After all, he probably realizes that the EU was a totalitarian project, and all the peoples of the EU suffer under it, whereas the power elites make obscene amounts of money.
And on hatred between nations: I still believe that the power elites, especially in the media, could do at least something to lessen it.
The famous words of Th. G. Masaryk (āThe hatred between the peoples would end, if some individuals wouldnāt earn oodles of money with its propagationā) may be slightly exaggerated, but there is a good grain of truth within them, imho.
” And the ancient Breughel picture is notable insofar, as that the tower is already crumbling at the bottom, in spite of it being unfinished at the topā¦”
How appropriate for the EU.
For the elites and hatred between nations: Goring said it all. He admitted what they did, and what political elites always do to stir up war and conflict.
“So, NATO is the aggressor and Putin had to end the aggression? Meanwhile, Russia had wanted to become part of NATO sometime in the not too distant past.”
Nice, two ACCURATE sentences to start a posting.
In international law, a memorandum of understanding that is intended to be binding is considered binding and is considered to be a treaty even if it has a less compelling status under American domestic law than a treaty approved by Congress.
Complete, total, utter b.s.
There is no such thing as a binding Memorandum. It is a Memorandum because it was not intended to be a binding treaty. Your fictional alternative version of "International Law" does not exist beyond your imagination.
As the events of the past two years verifies, absolutely nobody found anything about the Budapest Memorandum as binding them to provide Ukraine with boots on the ground military aid.
The operative clause of what action was assured, as I quoted at #113, is what you desperately seek to avoid:
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the NonĀProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
The text states what "assurances" were given. What was assured was that any matter of aggression would be referred to the UN Security Council. That happened. No surprise there, Russia held a veto on any possible action by the UN Security Council, and everyone knew that fact when the Budapest Memorandum was signed.
There were other memoranda and treaties that Russia signed and public declarations that Russia would not use or threaten force against Ukraine. The essential point is that because those pledges were broken, no one with a lick of sense trusts promises now from Putin and Russia.
The Minsk Accords was a binding treaty. That Ukraine never intended to fufill its obligations made them no less binding. That Angela Merkel openly stated that the Minsk Accords were simply a device used to gain time to rearm and reinforce Ukraine simply underscored the fact that a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine is worthless.
You have yet to come up with a treaty or any actual statement of any authority that a Memorandum is as binding as a treaty. Such statements that it is not binding as a treaty are plentiful.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATIONUkraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance
FACT SHEETS & BRIEFS
Last Reviewed:
February 2022Contact: Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107
[EXCERPT]
1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraineās territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force.
The quote states, in relevant part, of the Budapest Memorandum, "A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords...." The Budapest Memorandum was a POLITICAL agreement, not a binding LEGAL agreement. But what of those "principles of the Helsinki Accords?"
https://www.britannica.com/event/Helsinki-Accords
[excerpt]
The Helsinki Accords were primarily an effort to reduce tension between the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their common acceptance of the post-World War II status quo in Europe. The accords were signed by all the countries of Europe (except Albania, which became a signatory in September 1991) and by the United States and Canada. The agreement recognized the inviolability of the post-World War II frontiers in Europe and pledged the 35 signatory nations to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic, scientific, humanitarian, and other areas. The Helsinki Accords are nonbinding and do not have treaty status.
As with the Budapest Memorandum, the Helsinki Accords were a NONBINDING statement of political intent and did not have treaty status.
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014
The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was not even registered with the United Nations until twenty years after the fact, in 2014 when Ukraine tried to make believe it was something it was not.
Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraineās former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum:
āthe form and content of the Memorandum ... show that, unfortunately, the Budapest talks on giving Ukraine security guarantees did not eventually result in a comprehensive international agreement that creates an adequate special international mechanism to protect our national security.ā
According to V. Vasylenko, āUkraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world.ā
Ukraine's forgotten security guarantee: The Budapest Memorandum
DW News [German]
Date 05.12.2014
[Excerpts]
Twenty years ago, the Budapest Memorandum marked the end of many years of negotiations between the successor states of the Soviet Union and leading Western nuclear powers. Ukraine had a special place in the talks.After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the eastern European country inherited 176 strategic and more than 2,500 tactical nuclear missiles. Ukraine at that point had the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world after the United States and Russia.
But Leonid Kravchuk, then the president of Ukraine, told DW that was only formally the case. De facto, Kyiv was powerless.
"All the control systems were in Russia. The so-called black suitcase with the start button, that was with Russian president Boris Yeltsin."
Western pressure
Ukraine could have kept the nuclear weapons, but the price would have been enormous, Kravchuk says. Though the carrier rockets were manufactured in the southern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk, the nuclear warheads were not. It would have been too expensive for Ukraine to manufacture and maintain them on its own.
"It would have cost us $65 billion (53 billion euros), and the state coffers were empty," Kravchuk said.
Additionally, the West threatened Ukraine with isolation since the missiles were supposedly aimed at the United States. Therefore, "the only possible decision" was to give up the weapons, according to Kravchuk.
[...]
"Nowhere does it say that if a country violates this memorandum, that the others will attack militarily," said Gerhard Simon, Eastern Europe expert at the University of Cologne.
German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, telling DW, "The agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written."
Cyber-Security: The Threats from Russia and the Middle East, Ferry de Kerckove, CGAI Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, (2019), at 2-3: (footnotes omitted)
On the latter point, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (not āguaranteesā), although considered an important landmark, had a single purpose: to convince Ukraine to abandon its nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the signatories to provide it with support: ā1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.ā The memorandum, although formally signed, is not a treaty. Indeed, āAlthough signatories āreaffirm their commitmentā to Ukraine in many passages, the memorandum requires them to do almost nothing concrete, in the event that Ukraineās sovereignty ā territorial or political ā is violated. There arenāt any hard enforcement mechanisms.ā Ukraine is the subject of the memorandum, rather than a full participant. Furthermore, according to Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraineās former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum, āthe form and content of the Memorandum ... show that, unfortunately, the Budapest talks on giving Ukraine security guarantees did not eventually result in a comprehensive international agreement that creates an adequate special international mechanism to protect our national security.ā
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security āassurances,ā not āguarantees.ā Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation.
As for any assurances given by Russia in 1994, those were given to the lawfully elected government of Ukraine. In 2014, an American fomented and financed color revolution struck Ukraine and the lawfully elected government was thrown out by a coup. Neither Russia, Crimea, LPR nor DPR owed anything to those who staged the coup and installed an unlawful government.
“Glad you noticed the truth in those ‘statements’”
It’s rare that you get anything right, so it is worth pointing it out when it happens.
“Now you agree with me that Putin/Russia are the aggressors?”
Your words, not mine.
I have no idea what kind of word salad you’re babbling about, but to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR - I agree with TRUMP and FARAGE as to who started the war in Ukraine, which is that it was NATO who started it.
But the good news for you guys is that BIDEN IS UP in the latest Fox News polling.
Well, Russia is trying with Ukraine.
The Neocons wanted a war in Ukraine, and Russia provided that to them, like it or not.
Yeah, right. They wanted a war that they thought that they would lose in a few days. The only one who wanted this war is Putin. Stop making excuses for him.
“The only one who wanted this war is Putin.”
Take that up with Trump and Farage, as they have done their homework and have both reached the conclusion that the war was started by NATO Expansion.
“Well, Russia is trying with Ukraine.”
Technically you’re right and Russia will run over Ukraine, or at least most of it, since the Neocons seem intent on dragging this war through the November elections, for obvious reasons (why some people on FR want the same eludes me, though).
Beyond that, there is no evidence that Russia has any interest or capability to directly take on NATO, other than glassifying NATO, if they are forced to do so.
And you are OK with Russian subjugation of Ukraine? As for dragging this war on, that would be Putin. Ukraine and its supporters are only trying to defend Ukraine from Russia. If the Russians just went home there would be no war. Why is that so hard to understand?
“And you are OK with Russian subjugation of Ukraine?”
Russia has NO INTEREST in subjugating Ukrainians, as they have made a number of peace proposals which does not ‘subjugate’ them to anything. All of these proposals were dismissed out of hand as they prevented the Neocons from achieving their objectives against Russia.
But yes, Ukraine may well end up being subjugated, as Russia STILL has not been given a reasonable alternative.
These so-called peace proposals call for Ukraine to give up land, change its government, reduce its military, forego any defensive alliances, all leaving itself open to further Russian aggression. These are not peace proposals but demands for unconditional surrender.
If this is truly about NATO expansion, then let Putin publicly offer complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality and no NATO membership. But he could have had that before he invaded. He did not accept it because he wanted Ukrainian land and the ability to dominate Ukraine. Face it, Putin has many times over the years stated that he does not recognize Ukraine as a real country.
Stop blaming this war on some Neocon bogeymen. It was Russia that entered with an army, not the Neocons. Ukraine has never been a threat to Russia; it has been Russia that is a threat to Ukraine.
“These so-called peace proposals call for Ukraine to give up land, change its government, reduce its military, forego any defensive alliances”
The land is gone - Ukraine, if they even survive this war, will never see that again. But it’s worth noting that the ONLY land they would have given up, until just over 2 years ago, was Crimea - and even that would have been open to future negotiations. At this point there are at least 50,000 Russians killed, thanks to the Neocons, so Russia will drive a harder bargain.
As to changing its government, that is very recent, and makes sense, since Zelensky doesn’t even have constitutional authority to be in office. Reduce its military - that’s life, if you want to not have the Russian military occupying your cities, then don’t pose a threat to Russia. Forego defensive alliances - what are ‘defensive alliances’? We all thought NATO was a ‘defensive alliance’, but then they bombed the shit out Serbia just for kicks, and then the same to Libya. Seems to me that ANY alliance with the West cannot be trusted to be only defensive. The OLD NATO, during the Cold War, actually was defensive, at least as far as I can remember, since I don’t know of any wars of aggression, started by them (in that timeframe).
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.