'cookieChoices = {};'


No Light
But Rather
Darkness Visible
click.jpg

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Some bad news about the Ukraine for NATO and American credibility

StrategyPage:
Most of the world condemns Russian aggression against Ukraine and the seizure of Ukrainian territory (Crimea). The UN charter forbids such actions, as does a treaty Russia signed in 1994 promising Ukraine that Russia would never seize any Ukrainian territory. This solemn promise was in return for Ukraine giving up the Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory. The agreement that broke up the Soviet Union in 1991 stipulated that Russia and the 14 new countries created (by the half of the Soviet population leaving the empire for independence) would keep whatever Soviet weapons and other state assets were on their territory.

That was simple and straightforward but it left Ukraine with over 2,000 nuclear weapons plus 176 ICBMs, 44 heavy bombers and over a thousand nuclear weapon equipped cruise missiles used by the heavy bombers. Ukraine could have been a major nuclear power but it gave it all up for guarantees to its territory from NATO and Russia plus a lot of cash (including the expense of removing the nukes and related equipment)

guarantees to its territory from NATO” Okay?
Ron Paul: ‘So they took the Crimea, SO WHAT?’
So then …
China is watching this carefully because China is violating an international maritime borders treaty it signed by claiming all of the South China Sea. What happens to Russia for violating the 1994 treaty will influence what China does with its numerous offshore territorial disputes. Another problem with violating the 1994 treaty is the message it sends to states like Iran. The message is that if you really want to keep invaders out you need nukes. Iranians believe the negotiations to limit Iranian nuclear research and development are an effort to block Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Most Iranians see nukes as a necessity for maintaining Iranian dominance in the region. Iran has been the regional superpower for thousands of years. Once you get a taste of superpower status, it’s a hard thing to put behind you.
Now we can’t go to war every time borders change somewhere, but you also don’t make a guarantee you don’t keep without expecting some VERY, VERY bad things to happen.
I mean, as Ron Paul would say, so Israel gets wiped off the map, so what? We still smoke our briskets, right? So the Philippines gets ramrodded by China over some fish and oil, so what? So Japan loses the Senkakus, so what? They can live without them and it’s not our security at stake, so what? And if Australia aligns more with China for their own future after that, what the hell, they are far away, and I can still buy my boneless breast of chicken and stick’em on the grill with my corn, right? So the Chinese have a base in Nicaragua and Venezuela, they are all independent countries, right?
I mean we can’t go to war over all these stupid things, right?
We don’t have to. We just have to be too stupid to know what’s impossible without going to war. And to accomplish that we have ot have a very different attitude.
The attitude of the losers who elected this COMPLETE failure, this incompetent amateur is that OF A LOSER.
We either change, or we lose our allies. We lead or we do not. There is no leading from behind. That’s what a dreamer says.
Our president is a dreamer and SO ARE THOSE EUCHRED FOOLS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link#

2 Comments:

Blogger Always On Watch said...

China is watching this carefully because China is violating an international maritime borders treaty it signed by claiming all of the South China Sea. What happens to Russia for violating the 1994 treaty will influence what China does with its numerous offshore territorial disputes. Another problem with violating the 1994 treaty is the message it sends to states like Iran.

Valid points that few are considering, IMO.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:09:00 pm  
Blogger Charles Martel said...

Few are considering these points because nobody pays attention to what the analysts are telling them.

After the Cold War finished and Clinton was busy dismantling language training in State, etc., Congress requested a study, showing what future conflicts were anticipated.

On 9/11, one of the officers running for her life out of the Pentagon, the word "asymmetrical" came to mind. A long time ago the Pentagon had delivered the study, where the main conflicts facing the country would be asymmetrical. Nothing was done with the study, and then 9/11 happened.

Friday, March 28, 2014 5:32:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts