Free Republic

Why not go to Moscow and enlist. You could learn Korean.

Because I spent twenty years on active duty and retired. I have no particular love of Russia; never been there. I am just hot so fantastically stupid as to believe that Ukraine is winning, or could ever win, the current conflict against Russia. Ukraine is being clubbed to death. When the conflict ends, Ukraine will quite possibly just be a failed state, with various parts picked off by the surrounding states. Now why don't you back up forty paces, sprint forward as fast as you can, do a triple somersault, and disappear up your own butt.

"Boots on the Ground" were never requested by Ukraine, and only ever suggested since spring of 2024 by French Pres. Macron.

Recently some Baltic countries have hinted at the possibility, should Ukraine's situation grow too desperate.

The idea was floated in 2022.

https://www.quora.com/What-might-happen-if-the-U-S-puts-boots-on-the-ground-in-Ukraine-How-would-it-play-out

Former US-NATO commander wants to put troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Philip Breedlove is the latest high profile official to catch the war fever and advocate direct U.S. conflict with Russia.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Apr 25, 2022

Former NATO top commander Gen. Philip Breedlove is the latest big name to come out for putting troops on the ground in Ukraine. Breedlove, who has been angling for weeks for a more muscular policy against Russia, told The Times of London that it’s time for real action. And he may have the ear of the White House: the article says he's named as one of “several high-ranking retired commanders advising the Biden administration on Ukraine."

“So what could the West do? Well, right now there are no Russian troops west of the Dnieper River. So why don’t we put Nato troops into western Ukraine to carry out humanitarian missions and to set up a forward arms supply base?”

Of course it wouldn’t stop there. Most likely Russia will react aggressively, if not explosively, since setting up “a forward arms supply base” would be fully entering this war on the side of Ukraine. NATO would be a co-belligerent in every way, with its 40,000 troops now stationed on alliance’s eastern front considered future enemy combatants. At the end of April, the Pentagon mobilized some 14,000 troops, along with F-35 strike fighters and Apache helicopters to Poland, Hungary, and the Baltics. A total of 100,000 U.S. troops now spread across Europe would no doubt be on some level of alert if NATO entered the fray.

Breedlove, who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander from 2013 to 2016, said this move was essential for the protection of Odesa, a strategic Ukrainian port city on the Black Sea.

“If Odesa falls, Ukraine will become a land-locked country with no access to the Black Sea. The impact on Ukraine’s GDP would be huge. It would be ruinous for the economy,” he told the Times.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/26/surprise-ex-general-pushing-for-nato-troops-in-ukraine-has-weapons-industry-ties/

Surprise: Ex-general pushing for NATO troops in Ukraine has weapons industry ties

Ret. US Gen. Philip Breedlove wants to escalate the military conflict with Russia but media outlets don't disclose he works for defense firms.

Eli Clifton
Apr 26, 2022

Weapons companies and military contractors stand to book new orders and enjoy heightened demand for new weapons systems, as the United States and NATO countries scale up spending in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Coincidentally or not, one of the most high-profile advocates for dramatically escalating NATO’s involvement in the war — literally calling for putting troops and arms inside Ukraine — quietly moonlights as a consultant for weapons firms and defense contractors, interests that presumably stand to benefit from a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

More importantly, that conflict of interest hasn’t been disclosed in any of his media appearances or interviews.

[...]

Breedlove, whom The Times notes is “advising the Biden administration on Ukraine,” also works as a consultant for the weapons industry, a fact which The Times did not disclose.

https://www.quora.com/What-might-happen-if-the-U-S-puts-boots-on-the-ground-in-Ukraine-How-would-it-play-out

/humor

Boris Ivanov

Studied History & Literature at Russian State University for the HumanitiesAuthor has 14.8K answers and 146.8M answer views

3y [~3 years ago]

Originally Answered: What would happen if the US invaded Ukraine?

Well, if the US would invade Ukraine it would surrender immediately and ask to become recognized as a territory of the US, with the plan to join the US as a state in the future. Then it would ask for financial support, investments, and the ability to close YouTube channels belonging to the enemies of the Ukrainian leadership. And then it would demand from the American troops to take over Crimea and rebel-controlled regions of Donbas too. Overall, it would be a great occasion for many members of the Ukrainian elite who already have their family members living or studying in the US.

- - - - -

Your suggestion that EU economies are "destroyed" is pure nonsense.

In fact, EU & NATO economies outsize Russia's by a factor of 10 to one.

Even at Russia's current massive military spending rate, NATO's military spending is over 5 to 1 greater.

Measuring economic growth on the basis of inflated currency yields propaganda. All your propaganda aside, the United States is certainly doing better than Germany and the UK. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Over 70% of the American people say the country is on the wrong track. The election results for Trump-Harris will say next week whether the American people buy your rosy scenario.

- - - - -

On December 20, 1991, Ukraine ratified what was its official interpretation of the Minsk Agreement. At paragraph 7 it says:

"12. Ukraine reserves the right not only to terminate, but also to terminate its participation in the Agreement or its individual articles."

Right, nothing in the 1991 Minsk CIS agreement compromised Ukraine's sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Smooth move, Ex-Lax.

Of course, paragraph 7 says:

8. Ukraine will strive to acquire the status of a nuclear-free state by destroying all nuclear arsenals under effective international control and on the basis of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine (55-12) will not be included in the military blocs.

Paragraph 12 gave Ukraine the option to terminate the Agreement. And WHEN did you say Ukraine officially exercised their option to terminate the Agreement? Without that bit that you left out, your whole Ex-Lax move is meaningless. I am sure at least one of us tried to research that point.

"Prevail" and "concede" are both matters of definition. In some senses, Ukraine has already prevailed and is unlikely to ever concede its sovereign territory to Russian military aggressions.

Today, nobody knows the outcome of any potential future peace negotiations.

No sane person can believe Ukraine has prevailed.

We know for a certainty that the U.S. and the rest of the West are calling for peace talks. Ukraine has even held a joke of a peace summit without Russia.

We know for a fact that Russia has refused to enter into such talks. Zelensky is not the lawful president of Ukraine, and Ukraine has passed a law that makes it illegal for any Ukrainian to enter into such talks.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/04/zelensky-signs-law-declaring-talks-with-putin-impossible/

Zelensky signs law that rules out Ukraine peace talks with Putin as ‘impossible’

By Snejana Farberov Published Oct. 4, 2022 Updated Oct. 4, 2022, 12:38 p.m. ET

[excerpt]

Zelensky signed a decree on Tuesday formally declaring negotiations with the Kremlin autocrat to be “impossible.”

The decree formalized comments made by Zelensky on Friday after Putin proclaimed four partially occupied regions of Ukraine to be a part of Russia “forever,” in what Kyiv and the West dismissed as an illegitimate farce.

“He does not know what dignity and honesty are. Therefore, we are ready for a dialog with Russia, but with another president of Russia,” Zelensky said on Friday.

The Kremlin responded to Zelensky’s move by saying that Russia will not end its “special military operation” if Kyiv rules out talks, adding that it “takes two sides to negotiate”.

“We will either wait for the current president to change his position or wait for the next president to change his position in the interests of the Ukrainian people,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

Russia has already entered into a ceasefire agreement for the current conflict. As with many of its agreements, Ukraine signed on for the purpose of gaining time with no intent to implement its obligations, and that conflict has continued to this day. Russia will not enter into a Minsk III. Russia will continue the SMO while Ukraine whines.

As Ukraine lacks a legal head of state, and it has legally prohibited negotiations with Russia, any prospective agreement could later be declared null and void. Such being the case, Ukraine can continue to negotiate a peace agreement with the United States or the UK or Germany, or whoever else they want, while the Russian army mauls them to death.

Russia has already taken the Russian-speaking industrial area which accounts for 70-80% of Ukrainian GDP. They are not giving it back. They are not paying to rebuild Ukraine. The brown t-shirt has worn out his welcome.

- - - - -

Not a "joke": 57 countries have pledged a total of circa $300 billion in aid to Ukraine since 2021, of which they have so far delivered around $200 billion. Those are the latest numbers I can find.

[...]

Even 10,000 North Koreans added to Russia's lines would not make more than a drop in the bucket of Russia's massive casualty rate.

Not a joke. All nations of the world have stood around and watched Ukraine get beat to death. Absurd reports and casualty statistics, and reports of meat attacks abound. Russia has a great advantage in manpower, has a great advantage in artillery, and has a great advantage in munitions. The Ukrainian air defense essentially ceased to exist, along with its air force. The Russians are constantly dropping bombs on the Ukrainian forces. Ukraine cannot respond in kind. And some morons want to claim that there are eight Russian casualties for every one Ukrainian casualty. For Ukraine, the conflict was hopeless, but the neo-cons do not care. They are not the ones getting destroyed or dying.

- - - - -

For comparisons, Ukraine's nominal GDP is circa $200 billion and its defense spending likely north of $50 billion/year.

REALITY CHECK BY EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, a Ukraine friendly source.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/747858/IPOL_BRI(2024)747858_EN.pdf

Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit (EGOV)
Author: Drazen RAKIC
Directorate-General for Internal Policies
PE 747.858 - February 2024

In 2022, as a result of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 30%. In 2023, economic growth exceeded expectations, with the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) putting the latest estimate of the annual real GDP growth rate at 5.7% (at the beginning of 2023, the NBU’s forecast was 0.3%). According to the NBU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) baseline forecasts, growth in the coming years is expected to be above 4%. The intensity and the duration of the Russian aggression remains the major source of forecast uncertainty. Baseline scenarios make a key assumption in that respect that the war will wind down as of end-2024.

Even in this baseline scenario, Ukraine’s real GDP would reach its pre-war level only in 2030. Potential output is considered to have dropped by more than USD 150 billion (or about 20%) in 2022, and a large share of Ukraine’s productive capacity and infrastructure has been devastated by the Russian aggression.

The Third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, issued by the World Bank, the Government of Ukraine, the European Union (EU) and the United Nations, estimates the total cost of reconstruction and recovery over the next decade at USD 486 billion.

[...]

Significant deterioration in educational outcomes and workers’ skills and abilities are directly caused by the war and these effects will fade only gradually over the course of the coming decades. Findings suggest that these impacts on human capital will lead to a fall in total factor productivity by about 7% by 2035.

- - - - -

Kursk was a massive blunder by Ukraine. It has become a big kill box for the best troops and equipment Ukraine had. Now they do not have them along the collapsing front, they have fewer of them, and will soon have none of them at all.

Ukraine will have a great victory the likes of Masada."

Naw... the only thing we know for certain is that Ukrainians are reporting massive Russian casualties, on the order of 20% to 30% higher than previous already record high levels -- in October approaching 1,500 Russian casualties per day, perhaps 40,000 for the month.

Of course the Ukrainians are inflicting over 1,000 casualties a day on the Russians. This comes from Ukrainian reports of the Ghost of Kiev dropping bombs on the Russians.

As with many Ukrainian claims, this was preposterous propaganda.

Sure, our pro-Russians love to pretend that Ukraine got nothing but words in exchange for surrendering their nuclear weapons stockpile, then the world's third largest.

That Ukraine got nothing is the propaganda of Ukraine and the BroJoeK's of the world. They got something they needed more than nukes.

You should stop crying about Ukraine giving up nukes.

- - - - -

https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700408436959

Lesya Gak at 4; Denuclearization And Ukraine: Lessons for the future (2004), Non-Proliferation Review 11:1

On the domestic level, Ukraine was suffering from a severe economic crisis. In the first years after its independence, Ukraine experienced a progressive economic decline and hyperinflation. Ukraine was also largely dependent on Russia for natural gas, oil, and petroleum products, as well as fuel rods for its nuclear reactors, and was accumulating an ever-growing debt to it (4.2 billion by 1994), which it was not able to repay. The Ukrainian government was beginning to realize the massive costs involved in fulfilling its disarmament obligations, which without outside assistance would likely bankrupt Ukraine’s economy (Krawchenko 1993, 87, 88; Twining 1992, 6, 7; Long and Grillot 2000, 33; Nahaylo 1993, Apr. 18).

- - - - -

https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2024.2409301

Zoe I. Levornik at 107; Lessons in Nuclear Disarmament: Constructive Intervention in Ukraine, Peace Review (16 Oct 2024)

In early September [1993], President Yeltsin and his senior ministers flew to Yalta for a summit meeting with President Kravchuk. Held in a hunting lodge built for Joseph Stalin, the meeting became known as the Massandra Summit. All the outstanding Ukrainian-Russian issues were on the table: the future of the nuclear forces and weapons, the Black Sea fleet, national oil and gas debts, security guarantees, compensation for the strategic weapons and warheads, and conversion of the nuclear materials. Ukraine owed Russia more than $2.5 billion for oil and natural gas credits. A week before the summit, Russia’s state-run gas firm, Gazprom, cut gas supplies to Ukraine by 25 percent. Then, Russian Defense Minister Gravchev declared that Gazprom would cut off all gas to Ukraine if it did not reach agreement at the summit. During the meeting Yeltsin proposed that Ukraine give up its claim to the Black Sea fleet and all its nuclear warheads. In exchange, Russia would forgive up to $2.5 billion in gas and oil debts and provide compensation in the form of nuclear fuel rods that would be manufactured from the reprocessed nuclear materials. These fuel rods would be used in Ukraine’s nuclear fuel plants. For its part, Ukraine would have to ratify the START I Treaty and Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Treaty promptly, and transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia within 24 months. Weakened by the economic recession, facing a bleak future without oil and gas, and desperately short of nuclear fuel rods, Kravchuk, Kuchma and the Ukraine government agreed to the Russian terms and signed a series of bilateral agreements giving up its claims to the strategic weapons, warheads, and the Black Sea Fleet.³⁸

³⁸ Reiss, Bridled Ambition, pp. 107-110. Gak, “Denuclearization and Ukraine,” Nonproliferation Review, pp. 106-135.

Ukraine had a choice between doing without clutching on to the nukes and chanting my precious, or doing without gas and electric. They wisely chose to do without their precious, rather than have their whole population sit about in the cold and dark. They were bankrupt then as they are bankrupt now. They are soon to face a similar choice.

In the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine of July 16, 1990 it states:

The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.

In the Agreements establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States of December 8, 1991; it states:

Article 4

Pending the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the territories of the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine, the decision regarding the need to use such weapons shall be taken with the consent of the Heads of the participating States of the Agreement by the President of the RSFSR on the basis of procedures drawn up jointly by the participating States.

Article 5

1. The Republic of Belarus and Ukraine undertake to accede to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear States and to conclude with IAEA the corresponding safeguards agreement.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/qviw5v-c5kmg/28.pdf

Letter from President George H. W. Bush to President Leonid Kravchuk via Privacy Channels. December 4, 1992.

Over the past year, the United States and its partners have welcomed Ukraine into the western community of nations. Ukraine is a party to CSCE and the CFE treaty, and a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Ukraine has demonstrated its commitment to peace by the bravery of your peacekeepers now on duty in Bosnia. Ukraine's pledge in its declaration of sovereignty to be a non-nuclear state has been particularly welcomed throughout the world.

LISBON PROTOCOL of May 23, 1992

ARTICLE V

The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine shall adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968 as non-nuclear weapon states Parties in the shortest possible time, and shall begin immediately to take all necessary action to this end in accordance with their constitutional practices.

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

The Massandra Accords

Massandra Accords is a set four official agreements that were signed on 3 September 1993 between Ukraine and the Russian Federation as result of negotiations that took place in Ukrainian government official residence Massandra Palace in Yalta, Ukraine. The agreements related to settlement on issues of utilization of nuclear weapons located on territory of Ukraine.

Protocol on settlement of issues of Black Sea Fleet (signed in Moscow)

Basic principles of utilization of nuclear weapon of Strategic Nuclear Forces located in Ukraine.

Agreement between the government of Russian Federation and the government of Ukraine on utilization of nuclear warheads.

Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on implementation of assured and authoritative supervision for operation of strategic missile systems of Strategic Forces located on their territories.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160826192457/http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_133

At link by Verkhovna Rada in Cyrillic, below from Google translate:

Basic principles of disposal of nuclear warheads of the strategic nuclear forces stationed in Ukraine

(Yalta, September 3, 1993)

The Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Ukraine, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, have agreed to the Basic principles of disposal of nuclear warheads of the strategic nuclear forces stationed in Ukraine:

1. Dismantling and transportation

a) The Parties shall ensure conditions for the removal by the Parties of all types of nuclear warheads of ICBMs and the transfer of these warheads, as well as warheads of nuclear ALCMs to the territory of the Russian Federation for the purpose of dismantling and disposal.

b) The executive bodies of the Parties shall cooperate in the matter of removal, transportation and storage of these warheads, guided by the provisions of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the procedure for moving nuclear munitions from the territory of Ukraine to the central pre-factory bases of the Russian Federation for the purpose of disassembling and destroying them from 1992 ( 643_016 ).

c) The Parties shall ensure safety during the operation and removal of nuclear warheads from missiles and during their transportation in accordance with the current requirements and rules of the regulatory and technical documentation for nuclear weapons. In this case, the transportation of nuclear warheads shall be carried out by the forces and means of the Russian Party. The Ukrainian Party is responsible for creating safe conditions for the movement of nuclear warheads on its territory.

d) Work on the implementation of paragraph 1 shall be carried out according to a schedule that will be developed by the Parties and approved by the heads of the Governments of the Parties. In this case, the need to first of all dismantle nuclear warheads with expired service life or storage of warheads and individual components will be taken into account.

Compensation for each nuclear warhead exported from Ukraine to the Russian Federation shall be made within one year from the date of crossing the border between the Parties by the warhead.

2. Procedure for compensating the cost of nuclear materials

a) All highly enriched uranium (approximately 50 m.t. HEU), extracted from nuclear warheads in accordance with this agreement, shall be processed in the Russian Federation into low enriched uranium (LEU).

b) The principles of payment for uranium shall include the following:

b.1. Neither Party shall subsidize the other.

b.2. Commercial transaction - no profit or loss, at "zeros".

b.3. Prices and costs taking into account inflation and changes in the world market.

b.4. The Russian Federation supplies Ukraine with fuel assemblies (FA) for nuclear power plants (NPP).

Compensation for the Russian Federation's costs for the supply of FA to Ukraine is carried out through the sale of a portion of the uranium extracted from strategic nuclear warheads deployed in Ukraine.

c) Weapons-grade plutonium extracted from strategic warheads deployed in Ukraine will be stored in the Russian Federation until the Parties make a decision on its disposal. Ukraine receives the cost of weapons-grade plutonium as it is sold minus the costs and expenses of the Russian Federation for its disposal.

d) Non-nuclear components of strategic nuclear weapons extracted from nuclear warheads deployed in Ukraine will be disposed of by agreement of the Parties. The Parties shall ensure transparency measures concerning the accounting of nuclear materials and their value during implementation under paragraphs "a", "b.4" and "c".

e) The supply of fuel assemblies for Ukrainian NPPs shall be carried out on the basis of annual contracts between the executive bodies of the Parties.

How many times do they say they going to give up the nukes without meaning to give up the nukes?

Finally Mother Russia told the ingrate beggar nation that they owed billions of dollars on their gas bill and if they did not get rid of the nukes Mother Russia was not going to let them suck on their government teat anymore. They were going to shut off the gas and stop providing them with fuel assemblies for their nuclear power plants. They either stopped screwing around or they were going to lose their gas and electric. Uncle Sam stood with Mother Russia in denying nukes to Ukraine.

what convention determined that Israel/UN is responsible for the care, feeding, infrastructure and welfare

Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol 1

of a bloodthirsty people determined to butcher Jews?

The Zionists have been in unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory for about sixty years. The occupied enoy the right of self-defense and the right of resistance against those who would commit genocide upon them.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154496

United Nations

UN News

UN General Assembly demands Israel end ‘unlawful presence’ in Occupied Palestinian Territory

By Vibhu Mishra
18 September 2024 Peace and Security

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution that demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

With a recorded vote of 124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions, the resolution calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw its military forces, immediately cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from occupied land, and dismantle parts of the separation wall it constructed inside the occupied West Bank.

The General Assembly further demanded that Israel return land and other “immovable property”, as well as all assets seized since the occupation began in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions.

The resolution also demands Israel allow all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation.

The resolution stems from the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, in which the Court declared that Israel’s continued presence in the Territory “is unlawful”, and that “all States are under an obligation not to recognize” the decades-long occupation.

Threat to peace and security

The Assembly “strongly deplored the continued and total disregard and breaches” by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions, stressing that such breaches “seriously threaten” regional and international peace and security.

It also recognized that Israel “must be held to account for any violations” of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including of international humanitarian and human rights laws.

The text says Israel “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”

The General Assembly highlighted the need for the establishment of an international mechanism for reparations to address damage, loss, or injury caused by Israel’s actions.

It also called for creating an international register of damage caused, to document evidence and related claims.

[...]

I’m not going to waste my time with it, certainly not to just get into the nitty gritty of the situation in Ukraine yet again. I’m done with this.

Of course you are not. Of course you are.

Nonsense. Tell that to the Maccabees, to the 13 colonies, to the Vietnamese. Two years later, Ukraine is still fighting, Russia is bringing in Nork mercenaries. It could go either way, like any war. There are ups and downs, and it’s a huge mistake to prognosticate a war strictly from the perspective of boots and logistics.

Outside of fairy tales, Ukraine has zero chance of prevailing. You will not have to wait very long now to watch Ukraine concede.

There is the political aspect, which Russia is now losing and Ukraine winning.

You have to be joking. Every nation on earth has declined boots on the ground support. Most nations have informed Ukraine of scaled back financial support. Support for Ukraine has evaporated.

Tell that to Kursk.

Kursk was a massive blunder by Ukraine. It has become a big kill box for the best troops and equipment Ukraine had. Now they do not have them along the collapsing front, they have fewer of them, and will soon have none of them at all.

Ukraine will have a great victory the likes of Masada.

There is the economic aspect, and Russia is suffering from acute Putinomics.

The European Union economies have been destroyed. Russia is doing just fine; Ukraine is bankrupt and will never pay its debts. The biggest threat to face the United States is BRICS+ and the creation of a competing reserve currency.

There is the geopolitical aspect, and with Russian manpower bled so dry that they are resorting to foreign mercennaries to do the fighting, China is looking hungrily at its former possessions in Siberia.

Your vivid imagination is working overtime. Russia has not even instituted a draft. It does not need one for an SMO. It is getting 30-40 thousand volunteers a month. Each receives basic training for several months and becomes a member of the reserves. They call up reserves as needed and have no shortage.

Ukraine has squads taking people off the streets or out of clubs, forcing them into service, and sending them to the front without training. Ukraine has those who escaped the country, and those in hiding, or those who can buy deferments.

China is looking to establish an alternate reserve currency, with Russia among others.

Finally, you are viewing history from where we are right now. In 1994, Russia was still reeling from a massive economic collapse, and a loss of its empire, and wanted to become a part of the glittering lands to the west that the propagandists now talk trash about. In that context, Ukraine was a new country that had been struggling for independence for centuries, and had been both victims and victimizers within its borders and the enclave of Volhynia in Poland.

Ukraine did not obtain independence through a mythical struggle. The USSR dispossessed it. Ukraine's history is one of being the poorest nation in Europe. They acceded to the NPT after obtaining the Budapest Memorandum knowing precisely what they were doing. They entered into the Jerusalem Accords in 1992 and vowed to get rid of nukes as soon as possible; with no intention of actually doing so. They delayed and delayed but the United States and Russia remained firm that they would remain in their isolated predicament until the nukes were gone. Having no real choice, Ukraine finally acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear state.

On December 20, 1991, Ukraine ratified what was its official interpretation of the Minsk Agreement. At paragraph 7 it says:

8. Ukraine will strive to acquire the status of a nuclear-free state by destroying all nuclear arsenals under effective international control and on the basis of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine (55-12) will not be included in the military blocs.

See the full statement. Ukraine was not duped in 1994.

Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Ukraine's conclusion of the Agreement on the Commonwealth of Independent States

In its conclusion, the Minsk Agreement with reservations ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine means the following for Ukraine:

1. According to the Act of Proclamation of Independence of Ukraine (1427-12) dated August 24, 1991 and the will of the people of Ukraine, carried out by means of an all-Ukrainian referendum, Ukraine is and remains its own the legal status of an independent state - a subject of international law.

2. Ukraine denies the transformation of the Commonwealth of Independent States into a state entity with its own authorities and administration.

3. Ukraine denies granting the Commonwealth of Independent States the status of a subject of international law.

4. Coordinating institutes within the framework of the commonwealth cannot have an authoritative character. Their decisions are advisory.

5. Carrying out foreign policy independently, Ukraine will enter into consultations with other states of the Commonwealth.

6. The border between Ukraine, on the one hand, and Russia and Belarus, on the other, is the state border of Ukraine, which is inviolable. The line of its passage, determined by the Agreement between Ukraine and Russia of 1990 and the Agreement between Ukraine and Belarus of 1990, remains unchanged regardless of whether Ukraine is a party to the Agreement or not.

7. Ukraine will create its own Armed Forces based on the Armed Forces of the former USSR located on its territory.

8. Ukraine will strive to acquire the status of a nuclear-free state by destroying all nuclear arsenals under effective international control and on the basis of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine (55-12) will not be included in the military blocs.

9. The presence of strategic armed forces on the territory of Ukraine is temporary. Their legal status and term of stay on the territory of Ukraine should have been determined by the Law of Ukraine and a special intergovernmental agreement concluded between the states on whose territory the nuclear weapons of the former USSR are located.

10. Ukraine will create its own open economic system by introducing its own currency, creating its own banking and customs systems, developing its own transport and communication systems, as well as participating in regional and interregional markets.

11. Ukraine will resolve disputes regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Agreement through negotiations on the basis of international law.

12. Ukraine reserves the right not only to terminate, but also to terminate its participation in the Agreement or its individual articles.

13. Ukraine guarantees the fulfillment of international obligations arising for it from the treaties of the former Union of the SSR, in accordance with its national legislation.

What is stated in paragraphs 1-13 of this Statement is the official interpretation of the Minsk Agreement and is mandatory for the activities of the President of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Ukraine and other structural branches of the executive power.

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv, December 20, 1991

N 2003-XII

Israel should just kill them then. They are enemy combatants.

They are not combatants at all.

Noam Lubbell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press, 2010, paperback 2011.

Noam Lubell is Lecturer, Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, National University of Ireland, Galway.

1.1 Combatants

[...]

The term combatant is used to describe those who are recognized by the law as having the right to take part in the fighting and who will be entitled to prisoner of war status if captured.

1.2 Civilians

Civilian persons, as with civilian objects, are not the subject of a descriptive definition within the law, but are defined by negation: anything which does meet the definition of military is civilian.

[...]

A civilian who takes up arms becomes an unprivileged civilian who may be targeted and killed, or criminally prosecuted on capture. He does not become a combatant lawfully authorized to engage in combat. Combatants are entitled to prisoner of war status if captured and may not be prosecuted.

You keep going back to America making it clear that they would not intervene militarily. Of course not. That would be insane. It’s a straw man argument.

Without boots on the ground military assistance, Ukraine was doomed from the outset. Regardless of what aid we provide to Ukraine, Russia can crush Ukraine. Regardless of all the aid that has been provided to Ukraine, it is getting destroyed by Russia. Ukrainian lines are colllapsing and the end is approaching.

For Ukraine to prevail, boots on the ground military assistance was essential.

Whenever the fighting ends, do we get to pay for everything that all the munitions blew up? Note that practically all the destruction by either side occurs in Ukraine. Almost all the artillery and munitions supplied to Ukraine are expended in Ukraine. Who do you expect to pay the bill for that? Russia is not going to volunteer.

At minimum what could be expected is that if Ukraine is attacked, the international community would provide conventional weapons and aid to Ukraine under attack.

There is no obligation whatever to get involved in every conflict on the planet and to finance one side or the other.

The only thing that accomplishes with someplace like Ukraine is to increase the level of destruction. However much Ukraine scales up its effort, Russia can always do more. It is a military mismatch.

When has the international community been expected to come to the aid of every African nation that has been attacked?

When the government of Ukraine was unlawfully overthrown, should the international community (exactly who is that?) have come to the aid of Ukraine to run the usurpers out of Ukraine?

None of the oblasts owed any loyalty to the usurpers who unlawfully seized the power of the government. Should the international commmunity have come to the aid of the LPR and DPR to fend off the unlawful government of Ukraine? Or should the international commmunity have stood by for about a decade as the unlawful government lobbed shells into Donetsk city?

The UN and the International Court has time and again found that Israel has unlawfully occupied the Palestinian territory since its war of aggression in 1967. Does the international comunity have a duty to use force to kick Israel out of land that does not belong to it? The one thing preventing international action is the U.S. veto at the security council. Do we have a duty to supply all the arms and munitions needed for the Muslim nations to drive Israel off the Palestian territory? Or is this irresistible impulse to intervene in every conflict imposed on a selective basis considering only who one considers to be the good guy or the bad guy?

As a matter of decided fact, Israel was the aggressor. Do we have a duty to intervene for Gaza and all of Palestine?

Who gets to decide who was the aggressor? The United Nations, the International Court, or Tony Blinken?

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154496

United Nations

UN News

UN General Assembly demands Israel end ‘unlawful presence’ in Occupied Palestinian Territory

By Vibhu Mishra
18 September 2024
Peace and Security

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution that demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

With a recorded vote of 124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions, the resolution calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw its military forces, immediately cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from occupied land, and dismantle parts of the separation wall it constructed inside the occupied West Bank.

The General Assembly further demanded that Israel return land and other “immovable property”, as well as all assets seized since the occupation began in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions.

The resolution also demands Israel allow all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation.

The resolution stems from the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, in which the Court declared that Israel’s continued presence in the Territory “is unlawful”, and that “all States are under an obligation not to recognize” the decades-long occupation.

Threat to peace and security

The Assembly “strongly deplored the continued and total disregard and breaches” by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions, stressing that such breaches “seriously threaten” regional and international peace and security.

It also recognized that Israel “must be held to account for any violations” of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including of international humanitarian and human rights laws.

The text says Israel “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”

The General Assembly highlighted the need for the establishment of an international mechanism for reparations to address damage, loss, or injury caused by Israel’s actions.

It also called for creating an international register of damage caused, to document evidence and related claims.

[...]

Does the United States and the international community have an obligation to step in on behalf of Palestine, or is this sense of obligation selective?

I bring your attention to the following Legal Sidebar by the U.S. Congressional Research Service. In the real world, a nation is either a neutral nation or a party to the conflict. Provision of arms and munitions to one side of a conflict may make one a party to the conflict and a legitimate target. It is a violation of the law of neutrality. Russia could legally justify declaring the United States (and others) a party to the conflict.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735

International Neutrality Law and U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine

April 26, 2022

Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar

At page 2:

Sources and Requirements of the Law of Neutrality

The law of neutrality has its roots in 17th and 18th century state practice in which countries developed a system of reciprocal rights and obligations for neutral states and belligerents. Neutral states have a duty not to participate in hostilities and to be impartial in their conduct toward belligerents. In return, belligerents are obligated to respect neutral states’ territory, and neutrals are permitted to trade with all sides of the conflict if they do so in an impartial way. Countries eventually came to accept certain principles of neutrality as part of customary international law—a body of law that is derived from state practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation.

Many facets of neutrality law were defined in two treaties adopted at a 1907 peace conference:

• the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) and

• the Hague Convention (XIII) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII).

Under Hague V and XIII, neutral states cannot provide “ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever” to belligerents. The treaties exempt humanitarian assistance from this prohibition, and they do not require neutral states to prevent private companies from selling munitions and war material. Neutral states also have an obligation to prevent belligerents from committing certain hostile acts on neutral states’ territory, and Hague V and XIII require neutrals to intern and detain belligerent forces found in their territory. As part of their corresponding set of duties, belligerents must treat neutral states’ territory as inviolable. Belligerents may not move troops, munitions, or supplies, across neutral territory, and they may not set up communication apparatuses or recruit combatants, among other things, on neutral territory. Although Hague V and Hague XIII each have fewer than 35 state parties, the United States, Ukraine, and Russia have ratified both treaties.

Some observers view Hague V and XIII as reflecting customary international law, which is binding on all countries absent an objection. Others disagree with this view. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense observed that “it may be incorrect to assume” that Hague V and XIII reflect customary international law when “current events are quite different” from the time the treaties were drafted. Some commentators have gone so far as to question whether states so frequently ignore neutrality obligations that the treaties have fallen into a state of obsolescence and are no longer binding. The International Court of Justice has not directly addressed the customary status of these treaties, but it did state in an advisory opinion that “the principle of neutrality, whatever its content, … is of a fundamental character” that applies in all international armed conflicts.

- - - - -

Otherwise, of what meaning is “being welcomed into the international community”. We’ll let you visit, buy stuff and sell stuff, but if you’re attacked by the big bully to the east, we’ll just eat popcorn and watch?

If a person is having a heart attack, you have no legal duty to render assistance. If someone is choking, you have no legal duty to attempt the Heimlich maneuver. The international community has no legal obligation to intervene in every conflict on earth.

But it looks like that was the full import of this phony document. Who was Prez at the time? Kravchuk or Kuchma? Whoever. They failed in their duties.

There is nothing phony about the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine was not a party to it. It was about Ukraine.

There is nothing phony about the Lisbon Accords. The only thing phony was Ukraine's intent to ever implement what it agreed to.

There was nothing phony about the Minsk Accords. The only thing phony was the intent of Ukraine to implement what it agreed to.As Angela Merkel revealed in one of those rare moments of political truth telling, the Minsk Accords were used to buy time to reinforce Ukraine.

The Minsk Accords are a ceasefire agreement that was never implemented. That conflict never ended and is the conflict today.

There was no failure of duty regarding the Budapest Memorandum. Had Ukraine not given up the nukes it would have remained ostracized by Russia and the United States, and would have a history of having been a short-lived failed state. The Ukrainian leaders recognized that they had no choice but to give up the nukes. It was a unified Russia and United States that demanded the nukes be destroyed.

A promise to go to the UNSC is meaningless in this case. I suspect that the newly emerged independent state of Ukraine might have been bamboozled by its new western friends.

Nonsense. Ukraine wanted a treaty and had a Memorandum imposed. Ukraine was told explicitly by the American officials that American military assistance was not on offer. Ruissia and the United States stood united. The nukes had to go, and Ukraine would only be welcomed ijnto the international community after acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

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 “assurances,” not “guarantees.” 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.

Ukraine had already agreed to get rid of all the nukes in 1992.

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/letter-us-president-g-h-w-bush-ukrainian-president-l-kravchuk

Letter from US President G. H. W. Bush to Ukrainian President L. Kravchuk, June 23, 1992

Dear Mr. President:

On May 23 in Lisbon, five nations signed a protocol which opened the way for all five to ratify and become parties to the START Treaty. This historic accomplishment recognizes the essential role of Ukraine in fulfilling the obligations of the former Soviet Union under the Treaty. Imlementation of the START Treaty will enhance stability by substantially reducing nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms and by laying a foundation for further reductions. The United States looks forward to working with Ukraine as a full and equal partner in implementing the Treaty and reducing the burden of nuclear weapons that are a legacy of the former Soviet Union.

As part of this agreement, Ukraine will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the shortest possible time. This is an important step along the path laid out in the statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the non-nuclear status of Ukraine. When the Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated in 1968 the United States formally declared its intention to seek immediate action in the United Nations Security Council to provide assistance to any non-nuclear weapons state party that is the object of aggression or threats of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. Mr. President, let me formally state that the United States stands by that commitment to Ukraine.

[...]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/qviw5v-c5kmg/28.pdf

Letter from President George H. W. Bush to President Leonid Kravchuk via Privacy Channels. December 4, 1992.

Over the past year, the United States and its partners have welcomed Ukraine into the western community of nations. Ukraine is a party to CSCE and the CFE treaty, and a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Ukraine has demonstrated its commitment to peace by the bravery of your peacekeepers now on duty in Bosnia. Ukraine's pledge in its declaration of sovereignty to be a non-nuclear state has been particularly welcomed throughout the world.

If I were prez of Ukraine at the time, I would have put middle fingers up and hung onto my nukes. It’s outrageous. This may have outdone Chamberlain at Munich. But here we are.

If you had been the President of Ukraine, you would have made it a failed state.

Ukraine was bankrupt and could not afford to maintain the nukes, they lacked the control codes, the long range ICBM missiles were targeted at the United States, and had a minimum targeting range of 5,000 km, which made them just about useless to target Russia. I suppose they could have created a dirty bomb and had a war with Russia. As Kravchuk noted, giving up the nukes was the only possible decision.

And Russia has veto power over UNSC resolutions, so it was a con job from the getgo, if Russia is the aggressor. Amazing. Diplomatic corps people are supposed to be smart.

It is not a con job when they knew exactly what they were getting and agreed to it.

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 “assurances,” not “guarantees.” 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.

It was made explicitly clear that any implied commitment of American military force was not on offer.

Ukraine had agreed and bound itself to get rid of the nukes in 1992 with the Lisbon Protocol. According to Volodmyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum: “Ukraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world.”

Ukraine's forgotten security guarantee: The Budapest Memorandum

DW News [German]
Date 05.12.2014

[Excerpts]

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."

It is not remotely possible that Ukraine did not realize that Russia held a Security Council veto and could veto any action by the Security Council. The purpose of the Budapest Amendment was not a military security guarantee which the United States made clear was not on offer. The purpose of the Budapest Memorandum was to provide political cover for Ukrainian officials in Ukraine. The Memorandum was among the major powers; Ukraine was only the subject of the objectively meaningless Memorandum. As long as Ukraine had the nuclear warheads on its soil, it was to remain a pariah state, isolated and without money, with the unlikely duo of Russia and the United States joining to enforce that isolation. The events in former Yugoslavia were still fresh in the minds of the major powers, and nobody wanted a Yugoslavia with nukes.

Ukraine had agreed to get rid of the nukes in 1992 with the Lisbon Protocol. Ukraine then set about not implementing that agreement. Two years later they found themselves still a pariah state. Ukraine tried to give up some of the nukes and keep the rest. Russia refused to officially receive that document. Then, as Kravchuk noted, giving up the nukes became the only possible decision. But they needed some political cover to do what they had weaseled out of doing for the previous two years. The only con job was by the Ukrainian politicians selling the Memorandum to the Ukrainian people as something it never was.

Folks on the left claimed Trump chose that venue supposedly to reenact a Nazi rally that was held at the arena in 1939. But, as usual, there’s a problem:

Yes, there is a problem. Four different arenas at different locations have been Madison Square Garden down through the years. The current one between 7th and 8th Avenue from 31st to 33rd street, above Penn Station opened in 1968 and did not exist in 1939.

The arena of 1939 was at 8th Ave and 50th St., 17 city blocks away.

The first two Gardens were located at Madison Square, on East 26th St. and Madison Ave.

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 Non­Proliferation 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 prior commitment was to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine. Seeking happened, fulfilling the commitment. What was sought was not approved by the UNSC.

The Budapest Memorandum contained no commitment by anyone to provide any form of military or financial assistance. At the outset of the current conflict, the United States ruminated about a coalition of the willing to provide boots on the ground military assistance. The international community made clear the United States would be on its own. As a result, no nation on the planet agreed to send boots on the ground assistance to Ukraine, sealing its fate.

The corruption runs so deep that defensive reinforcements were paid for but exist only on paper. The money disappeared into the black hole of Ukraine.

Ukraine is being systematically destroyed. It has lost about half of its population and the great majority of its industry. It is bankrupt and hopelessly corrupt, unfit to join the EU or NATO. Its fight will be to survive as a nation.

The Russian special operation was initiated February 22, 2022. Ukraine referred the conflict to the UNSC on February 23, 2022, as provided for in the Budapest Memorandum, paragraph 4; and citing UNSC S/2014/136 of February 28, 2014.

UNSC S/Agenda/8979 of February 25, 2022 set a provisional agenda for the 8979th meeting of the Security Council to be held Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5 p.m. citing letter dated February 28, 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UNSC (S/2014/136).

On February 27, 2022, the United Nations Security Council met and stated, "taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 8979th meeting has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," decided to call an emergency session of the General Assembly. Only the Security Council may authorize any collective military action and the attempt to gain such authorization failed. It was taken up at the General Assembly which may express the sense of the General Assembly.

- - - - -

In his last years, Volodymyr Vasylenko (1937-2023) published several articles that are still available online, some where he railed against the Minsk agreements, arguing they were illegitimate and illegal. In one of those he referred specifically back to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum:

"Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom have a right to participate in negotiations with Russia on the side of Ukraine as participants in the Budapest Memorandum, which assured Ukraine of international respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity."

So, clearly Vasylenko considered Budapest both valid and important, even in 2021.

Your link is:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/09/13/how-ukraine-can-escape-the-trap-of-the-minsk-protocols-and-return-to-international-law/

How Ukraine can escape the trap of the Minsk Protocols and return to international law

by European Pravda
13/09/2021

Article by:
Volodymyr Vasylenko, Professor, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, Judge with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2001-2005

Translated by: Christine Chraibi

[excerpt]

Article 51 of the UN Charter unconditionally recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…” This implies that all UN member states, which have assisted Ukraine and/or applied international sanctions as a form of collective self-defence, have the right to participate in a Russo-Ukrainian settlement on the side of Ukraine as a state that has been subjected to Russian armed aggression.

Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom have a right to participate in negotiations with Russia on the side of Ukraine as participants in the Budapest Memorandum, which assured Ukraine of international respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This was published before the start of the Russian SMO, so it does not concern any duress currently being placed on Ukraine.

This article only indirectly addresses the Budapest Memorandum, it's focus being on how to weasel out of the Minsk Accords, a real treaty whose provisions prempt anything in the Budapest Memorandum.

To that end, in Ukrainian absurd fashion, the article presents the following legalistic brainfart:

In fact, the Minsk Agreements are illegitimate and, the documents were signed under duress and due to ongoing military aggression.

By this Ukrainian logic, every ceasefire agreement in recorded history would be invalid if one side was disadvantaged by getting the crap kicked out of it on the battlefield. They could sign any ceasefire treaty to get the other side to stop beating the crap out of them, and the treaty would always be null and void because they felt the duress of getting the crap beat out of them. There can be no better reason for Russia not to enter into any ceasefire agreement with Ukraine, but to only accept Ukraine's unconditional surrender under the duress of getting the whole place destroyed bit by bit.

The desperation of 2021 to weasel out of the Minsk Accords does not mean that Vasylenko did not understand the content of the earlier Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine was desperate to go back to the time of the Budapest Memorandum because it did not want to implement the terms of the Minsk Accords that it had signed.

The Jewish Virtual Library tracks the Jewish vote in American Presidential elections since 1916.

In 2016, Trump got 24% of the Jewish vote. In 2020, Trump got 30% of the Jewish vote. In no election sice 1916 has a Republican received 50% of the Jewish vote.

"American Jews tend to favor Democratic candidates, with 71% of Jewish voters choosing Democratic candidates on average and 26% choosing Republicans since 1968. "

woodpusher #111: It is absurd to think the Ukrainian officials were that dumb, stupid, and ignorant. Ukraine wanted a binding agreement and were told bluntly, by the Americans, that such was not on the table. They knew exactly what they were getting, it was clearly in writing in a MEMORANDUM. They were getting a referral to the United Nations Security Council where Russia held a veto on any action. As a security guarantee, it was worthless. It provided cover for the Ukrainian president to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He did not sign for a security guarantee. He signed for international recognition around the world. Volodmyr Vasylenko said so.

[BroJoeK #125] Really?? Noooo... Vasylenko was highly critical of the West, after Russia's 2014 invasion, for not coming to Ukraine's defense. Along with other Ukrainians, Vasylenko felt betrayed.

One may choose to believe the quoted published words of Volodymyr Vasylenko, or the psychoanlysis of Vasylenko by the Professor of Wikipedia.

The Budapest Memorandum was so worthless that Ukraine did not bother to file it with the United Nations until 2014, twenty years after it was signed. For decades, Ukraine considered it a shelved document, locked away in a bottom drawer.

- - - - - - - - -

Article by Volodymyr Vasylenko
Day, Kiev
Newspaper output No:
No. 37, (2009)

http://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/assurances-without-guarantees-shelved-document

On assurances without guarantees in a “shelved document”

Idealizing the Budapest Memorandum cannot and must not be a “step” in the shaping of Ukraine’s foreign policy

15 December [2009], 00:00

The previous issue of The Day published on December 8, 2009, an interview with Oleksandr Chaly, “Document from the ‘shelf’,” devoted to the 15th anniversary of signing the Budapest Memorandum. This subject has caused quite a stir and needs to be discussed in depth. We are presenting the viewpoint of Prof. Volodymyr Vasylenko who was Ukraine’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Benelux and representative of Ukraine at NATO and took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest Memorandum.

- - - - -

To start with, negotiations on security guarantees for Ukraine as a state that had voluntarily forsaken the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal were held not only in Budapest and not only in December 1994. Begun in April 1992 and held first with the US and then with the UK, Russia, and France, the talks ended on December 5, 1994, with the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, whereby Ukraine became a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition to Ukraine’s President Leonid Kuchma, this document was signed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin, US President Bill Clinton, and UK Prime Minister John Major.

China gave Ukraine security guarantees unilaterally in the governmental statement dated December 4, 1994, as did France in a declaration that was handed in to Ukraine’s delegation together with a covering letter signed by President Francois Mitterand on December 5, 1994.

As it follows from the Memorandum and the above-mentioned unilateral acts, the five nuclear states, permanent members of the UN Security Council, did not make any special commitments with respect to Ukraine – they only reaffirmed their commitment, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, as well as from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Besides, they reaffirmed their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine should it become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, and their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The only specific obligation that the three nuclear states – the US, Russia, and the UK – took was that they “will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.” This means that the aforesaid nuclear states must take part in these consultations at Ukraine’s demand. However, the Memorandum has no clauses that set out the procedure of convening and conducting such consultations, making and implementing decisions, or explain the nature of sanctions against the potential offender. The documents in which China and France gave Ukraine security assurances do not call for an institution of mandatory consultations. The Chinese declaration only says about the government’s inclination to a “peaceful settlement of differences and disputes by way of fair consultations.” The declaration of France does not mention consultations at all.

Therefore, the form and content of the Memorandum and the above-mentioned unilateral acts 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. Tellingly, the authentic English-language copies of the Memorandum use the term “security assurances” which is far weaker than “security guarantees.” The unilateral declaration of France also speaks about “security assurances” (assurances de securite) rather than security guarantees.

Yet the achieved agreement was significant for both Ukraine and the entire international community. This helped solve a major problem that caused serious tension in the relations between Ukraine and the leading geopolitical players, not in the least Russia, and created the danger of a global nuclear catastrophe. Ukraine no longer feels strong international pressure which, if continued, might have posed a threat of international isolation or even sanctions against this country. The Budapest Memorandum has created favorable conditions for Ukraine to strengthen its international position and prestige. Ukraine has found new opportunities to establish cooperation with the world’s influential democracies and make a free choice of civilization. After signing the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is further developing its relations with the EU and NATO, not in the least because this document does not offer a proper mechanism for this county to defend its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

In his lengthy interview, Mr. Chaly says categorically that this course is erroneous and that the Budapest Memorandum should form “the basis of our foreign-policy strategy of security” and be “a key element of Ukraine’s future foreign-policy strategy.” Instead, Ukrainian diplomacy has opted for an “approach of bloc allegiance,” locked this document in the “bottom drawer” and began to build Ukraine’s international principles of security “on the basis of the policy of accession to NATO” rather than on the Memorandum’s provisions. To buff up his invectives and arguments, he asserts: “The Budapest Memorandum is an international political and legal document that has defined the geopolitical status of Ukraine as a non-aligned, neutral state and given it the required security guarantees.” This statement has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There is not a shadow of a hint in the Budapest Memorandum about a neutral or non-aligned status of Ukraine.

Apparently, Mr. Chaly envies the laurels of those who say, in an attempt to deceive our citizens, that the Ukrainian Constitution has a provision on Ukraine’s neutral status. I once promised to present a truckload of whisky to the one who will find this provision in the Constitution. With due respect for Mr. Chaly’s persona, I am ready to present him with two truckloads of whisky if he manages to find at least an indirect reference to Ukraine’s neutral status in the text of the Budapest Memorandum.

By its very nature and content, the Budapest Memorandum cannot lay the groundwork for this country’s foreign-policy course because it is designed to be applied in exceptional, critical, situations only. This is why this document was “shelved” and Ukrainian diplomats extremely rarely tried to resort to it. And there is nothing abnormal or condemnable in that “only in the critical periods of our modern-day history was it invoked as a likely instrument of national security protection.” Naturally, the Memorandum has never been applied also due to the absence of provisions on a viable crisis-management mechanism.

Mr. Chaly reviles the Ukrainian political elite for NATO membership aspirations because “Russia, as a Budapest Memorandum guarantor country, has always taken a dim view of Ukraine’s accession to NATO.” By this logic, Ukraine should chart its foreign-policy course in line with Russia’s demands that are illegitimate from the angle of international law, rather than on the basis of its national interests. The Budapest Memorandum does not have even one provision that forbids Ukraine to freely exercise its sovereign right to be member of any international organization. Ukraine’s course towards NATO membership has always been legitimate and in no way jeopardizes the legitimate interests of Russia. But this course does not fit in with the neoimperial policy of Russia whose ruling elite cannot put up with the fact of an independent Ukraine, continues to consider Ukraine a part of their country, and dreams that it will return to the maternal fold of a revived Great Russia. The reason why Putin’s Russia is hysterically rejecting Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO is that this aspiration will make it absolutely impossible for Russia to stage an inperial comeback.

Therefore, the root cause of a “permanent conflict with the Russian Federation” is not the Ukrainian foreign policy aimed at entering NATO but Russia’s illegitimate and unfriendly actions that are supposed to prevent Ukraine from joining the alliance, the reluctance or, maybe, inability of the current Russian leadership to overcome their imperial complexes and build a relationship with Ukraine on the basis of international law rather than from a position of strength.

Unfortunately, Ukrainian-Russian relations are not the relations between the two sovereign states that respect each other in accordance with international law – it is a situation when Russia is carrying out a large-scale special operation that is aimed against Ukraine in contravention of elementary requirements of international law and good-neighborliness and is eventually supposed to eliminate Ukraine’s political independence. Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is one of the most important components of this special operation. Addressing the extended meeting of the Federal Security Service in Moscow on January 29, 2009, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia said: “There still is an unstable sociopolitical situation in some of the neighboring states, and attempts are still being made to expand NATO, also by way of the so-called accelerated admission of Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance. Quite naturally, this required resolute and highly coordinated efforts on the part of the law-enforcement bodies and other uniformed services. I must say that the Federal Security Service has in general fulfilled the tasks it was assigned.”

Last year Russia’s State Duma held a debate on the budgetary funding of a propaganda campaign to support the status of Ukraine as a neutral state. Oddly enough, all this coincides with the publication of various materials in the Ukrainian media, which try to prove the necessity of Ukraine abandoning its NATO membership course and even suggest introducing a clause on nonaligned status into the new Constitution of Ukraine.

There are a lot of serious studies which prove that the status of a neutral and non-aligned state is unacceptable for Ukraine, for it is ephemeral, costly and one that cannot solve this country’s security problems. This viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of high-profile academics, political scientists and politicians. With this in view, I will only note that the proclamation of Ukraine as a neutral state will only encourage, rather than stop, Russia’s further aggressive actions against Ukraine. Let me cite a very telling episode in the Russian-Georgian relations, which preceded the large-scale use of armed force by Russia against Georgia in the summer of 2008. When Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Georgian counterpart Mikhail Saakashvili met in Novo-Ogariovo in February 2008, the latter proposed the following compromise: “We are refusing right now to sign all that you do not like, we are immediately dropping our intentions about NATO and the European Union, we are abandoning any kind of neighborhood policy, but I strongly request you to promise that you will solve the conflicts only by means of agreements and in real terms and that you will return us the territories you occupied.” Putin said in reply: “…we have our own goals about you and others, and we will do our best to achieve them.”

How Russia has achieved its goals about Georgia is common knowledge. So it is now Ukraine’s turn.

Accepting the proposal to strengthen the Budapest Memorandum’s legal guarantees, as Ukraine assumes the status of a neutral and non-aligned state, will be a shameful act of surrender and sellout of national interests. And no juridical word-juggling will hide or justify this.

Naturally, one should welcome the attempts to improve the Budapest Memorandum. But even if a more effective mechanism is created to guarantee Ukraine’s security (which I think is of little likelihood), it cannot and must not be an alternative to our country’s Euro-Atlantic integration course. NATO membership will be not only the most effective instrument of Ukraine’s security but also a reliable guarantee of the inviolability of the civilization choice this country has made. It should be noted in this connection that today’s NATO is not a military bloc but a collective security mechanism which is, together with the EU, an important component of the Euro-Atlantic space of civilization. Therefore, it is at least uncivil to characterize Ukraine’s strategic course towards NATO membership as an “approach of bloc allegiance.”

For some well-known reasons, the course of Ukraine towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration is inconsistent today: sometimes this course is called into question by certain politicians for considerations of expediency and sometimes it is openly resisted by chauvinistic anti-Ukrainian forces.

With due account of the objective vital needs of Ukrainian society and in the very interests of Ukraine’s national security, there is no alternative to our country’s course towards full-fledged NATO and EU membership. This is all the more evident in the light of the latest statements and actions by the Russian leadership which regards Ukraine as a lost part of their own territory rather than an independent state. Hence is unwarranted interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs, blackmail and pressure, a real danger of encroachments on the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. In the current situation, Ukraine’s public should demand that the president and the government increase the funding of the national Armed Forces. One must make efforts not to carry out dubious projects that obviously run counter to national interests but to boost the efficiency of the Ukrainian army as a practical instrument of defending the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and a key factor of achieving its Euro-Atlantic goals.

The final and full-fledged accession of Ukraine to the European and Euro-Atlantic space will ensure not only the security and stability of the Ukrainian state but also the European standards of wellbeing, the environment, social guarantees, labor law, medical care, and the free development and personal freedom of every individual. All this does not and cannot exist, by definition, in Russia whose leadership is incurably ill with the imperial syndrome, greatpower chauvinism, and authoritarianism.

So pursuing a course towards Ukraine’s full-fledged NATO and EU membership is a moral and legal imperative for any president any government of Ukraine, which should be accompanied by radical reforms indispensable for meeting membership criteria as well as by a strenuous effort to impartially inform Ukrainian citizens about the nature of these alliances and the advantages of being their member. Of paramount importance in the NATO membership issue is the opinion of the Ukrainian people, but they should not express it now, as the anti-Ukrainian chauvinistic forces are demanding, because a considerable part of the populace remains, unfortunately, misinformed. A referendum on Ukraine’s accession to NATO should only be held after the Ukrainian government has made a formal request to be admitted to the alliance. There is no doubt that the properly informed citizens of Ukraine will say “yes” to our country’s NATO membership and, hence, to their security and the reliable guarantee of their rights, basic freedoms, and wellbeing.

Volodymyr Vasylenko is a professor, Doctor of Law, international law expert, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the Benelux

Author
Volodymyr Vasylenko
Newspaper output No:
No. 37, (2009)

- - - - - - - - -

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/4333/attachments/original/1576609499/Cyber-Security_The_Threats_from_Russia_and_the_Middle_East.pdf?1576609499

Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Cyber-Security: The Threats from Russia and the Middle East

by Ferry de Kerckhove
December 2019

Ukraine is the subject of the memorandum, rather than a full participant. Furthermore, according to Volodymyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum, “the 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.”¹²

¹² Volodmyr Vasylenko, “On Assurances without Guarantees in a Shelved Document,” day.kiv.ua, Dec. 15, 2009. Available at http://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/assurances-without-guarantees-shelved-document

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.uatom.org/en/2015/09/24/field-test-of-the-budapest-memorandum-and-ukraine-s-non-nuclear-status.html

In fact, a thorough analysis of historical facts gives sufficient evidence that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons under severe external pressure facing considerable internal instability. Besides, external pressure was exerted upon not only Ukraine, but also Belarus and Kazakhstan, which as well possessed nuclear weapons of the former USSR.

At the beginning of 1990, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine experienced difficult social and political processes that accompanied the establishment of their national identity. Professor Volodymyr Vasylenko, famous Ukrainian diplomat, former representative of Ukraine to the EU and NATO and direct participant of those events, reminds that back in 1990, James Baker, US Secretary of State, named “non-possession of nuclear weapons” among the main criteria guiding the US and all the Western World in recognizing new independent states². According to V. Vasylenko, “Ukraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world”².

Based on the above historical examples and slightly extending the opinion of Burgess, it may be concluded that in the modern world states seriously weakened for some reasons do not have rational possibilities to keep nuclear weapons, when put under coordinated external pressure³.

Other important factors, which led to the Ukraine’s decision to give up nuclear weapons, are as follows⁴:

• absence of possibilities to control nuclear missile systems at the Ukraine’s territory;

• nuclear weapons were designed and produced in Russia; mounting and service were performed by experts of the special administration of the former USSR Ministry of Defense, which did not have its subdivisions in Ukraine; the growing problem related to maintenance of nuclear warheads due to the fact that lifetime of some of them was coming to the end;

• absence of finances to produce own facilities for regeneration of nuclear warheads;

• necessity to retarget nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence in case of polar views in Ukrainian society related to geopolitical vector of state development; and last but not least

  strong anti-nuclear mood of the Ukrainian society mainly caused by Chornobyl accident.

At least some of the above mentioned obstacles are not likely to be insurmountable, but only provided neglecting the difficult social and political situation and economic crisis faced by the young state and absence of resources, including time required to solve the whole set of problems that would have been caused by the decision to follow the status of nuclear state.

__________

² “Ukraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world”. Ukrainian Week [Ukrainskyi Tyzhden’], No. 15 (335), 11 – 17 April 2014.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum

Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu

[excerpt]

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” 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.

North Korea Responds to Claims Troops Deploying to Russia-Ukraine War

Published Oct 22, 2024 at 10:53 AM EDT
Updated Oct 22, 2024 at 4:46 PM EDT

By Micah McCartney
Newsweek
China News Reporter

North Korea dismissed allegations on Monday that it deployed troops to Russia to assist in the war against Ukraine, branding the claims as baseless.

"As for the so-called military cooperation with Russia, my delegation does not feel any need for comment on such groundless, stereotype rumors aimed at smearing the image of the DPRK and undermining the legitimate, friendly, and cooperative relations between sovereign states," a North Korean representative said during a United Nations General Assembly committee meeting, using the country's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[...]

New York state spending is a staggering $33,440 for each K-12 student,

If a class contains 25 students, that would be $836,000 per class. What is the money being spent on?

The article is from 2022.

That seems ridiculous. GA wouldn’t have jurisdiction in NY property.

Judge Lewis Liman of the federal court in Manhattan decided.