Don't give up your guns or your nukes

[IB6UB9 42]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/28/ukraines-broken-nuclear-promises-248003.html

Once, Ukraine boasted the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. In the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, authorities in newly independent Kiev found themselves in possession of 176 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers and 1,240 nuclear warheads, along with more than 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

Fearful of Russian intentions, Ukrainians were in no hurry to surrender their weapons of mass destruction. The West, equally fearful that the nukes could get into the wrong hands after the Ukrainians began selling ballistic-missile technology to Iran in 1992, raced to disarm the fledgling post-Soviet republics.

A deal was signed on February 5, 1994, by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major and Leonid Kuchma—the then-leaders of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom and Ukraine—guaranteeing the security of Ukraine in exchange for the return of its ICBMs to Moscow's control. The last SS-24 missiles moved from Ukrainian territory in June 1996, leaving Kiev defenseless against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

That deal, known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, was not a formal treaty but a diplomatic memorandum of understanding. Still, the terms couldn't be clearer: Russia, the U.S. and U.K. agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine...reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine."

Twenty years on, politicians in Kiev are bitterly regretting the decision to trust the word of Washington and London. "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," says Ukrainian parliamentarian Pavlo Rizanenko, a former world boxing champion and member of presidential candidate Vitali Klitschko's UDAR Party. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

Moscow says it has not violated the Budapest memorandum. Russian state media claims that the estimated 20,000 troops in unmarked uniforms now encircling Ukrainian army garrisons in Crimea are "local self-defense units" rather than Russian army regulars. Last week Vladimir Putin told journalists that "anyone can buy Russian uniforms in a shop."

But few outside Russia—least of all the U.S. and U.K.—are buying that diplomatic fig leaf. "If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea, and if we do conclude the [budapest] memorandum is legally binding, then it's very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we're going to go to war with Russia," Sir Tony Brenton, who was British ambassador in Moscow from 2004 to 2008, told the BBC on March 15.

What is clear is that Russia's de facto annexation of Crimea is not only a violation of Ukrainian territorial integrity but, far more worrying, an assault on the world's nuclear nonproliferation agreements. De-nuking the former Soviet Union was one of the great, unsung triumphs of Clinton's presidency. If the U.S. and U.K.'s word, brokered by the U.N., cannot be trusted, many diplomats fear that there is little hope of getting threshold nuclear countries such as Iran to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Everyone believed that for good or bad the United States would be the world's policeman," says Rizanenko. "Now that function is being abandoned by President Obama, and because of that Russia invaded Crimea." In short, the lesson of Crimea is, according to Rizanenko, "if you have nuclear weapons, people don't invade you."

"There is a great danger of sending mixed messages," says one senior diplomatic source close to back-channel negotiations between the U.S., Iran and China last year. "The Americans say, give up your nuclear program and we will guarantee your security. But the Iranians can say—you already told the Ukrainians that, and look where it got them."

There's another danger, too—of undermining the basic stability of the postwar world, which is based, according to Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, on the "inadmissibility of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state...and nonrecognition of an acquisition of territory as a result of threat or use of force."

On March 15, Russia vetoed a strongly worded resolution in the United Nations Security Council unequivocally condemning Russian actions in Crimea. China, Russia's longtime ally on the Security Council, abstained.

There's another, even more detailed and binding, treaty that Russia's actions in Crimea defy. In 1975, the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Accords, which bound the leading players of the Cold War to respect each others' international boundaries.

The Soviets pressed for the treaty because they feared that the West was trying to persuade East Germany to rejoin its prosperous Western neighbor. They set up a fundamental principle that international borders could not be neatly drawn around Europe's different ethnic communities.

In scrapping the norms of Helsinki Accords, Putin has opened the whole post-Soviet security structure of the region to debate. That could open up multiple cans of worms. Already Russia has begun stirring up trouble in Moldova using the pro-Moscow Gagauz minority to oppose its association agreement with the European Union, as well as supporting Serbian resistance to a new political union in Bosnia's Republika Srpska.

If Putin's plan really is to redraw the maps of the former Soviet Empire using the rights of oppressed ethnic Russians, he could look to Kazakhstan, which has a 40 percent Russian population; as does NATO and European Union member Latvia.

Narva, Estonia also has a large and restive Russian majority. "There is a patchwork of nationalities in the east of Europe and the west," Poland's Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski told CNN. "We find ways of resolving these issues and pretty much we rub along. This is the way it has worked until now."

No longer, apparently. But will Putin be ready to deal with calls for independence from inside Russia itself? From the Muslim republics of Tatarstan, Dagestan and Chechnya—or from the oil and diamond rich Siberian Sakha Republic?

Meanwhile, as the White House denounced Sunday's referendum in Crimea as "dangerous and destabilizing" and a "violation of international law," Russian media stepped up its anti-U.S. rhetoric at home. "Russia is the only country in the world ready to turn the U.S. into radioactive ash," said television host Dmitry Kiselyov, an anchorman on the state-owned Russia One channel.

The same channel carried a discussion between Kremlin-favored pundit Aleksandr Dugin and the nationalist writer Aleksandr Prokhanov which concluded that 70,000 antiwar protesters who came out on the streets of Moscow on Saturday were "traitors." Last week a letter supporting Putin's actions in Crimea was signed by 200 top cultural figures—including Oscar-winning film director Nikita Mikhalkov—a practice of forcing people to declare themselves with the regime or against it borrowed from Stalinist days.

Putin has also acted swiftly and ruthlessly to extinguish last flickers of domestic opposition in the media and to crack down on Internet freedom. A new law drafted by Andrei Lugovoi—named by British police as the prime suspect in the 2007 polonium murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London and now a Duma deputy—allows for websites to be closed without warrant for calling for unsanctioned rallies. Already half a dozen mildly oppositional online media have been blocked and independent media owners who are still in business have moved quickly to fire editors who are less than slavishly loyal to the Kremlin.

The Kremlin-controlled media portray Putin's decisive action in Crimea as a huge win, as the West wrings its hands and Ukraine wallows in weakness and political dysfunction. In truth, Putin has embarked on a path that could prove deeply destabilizing to the world's security architecture—and could rebound fatally on his own multiethnic country.

Edited May 25, 2014 by IB6UB9

[lostinblue 1,989]

Obama Disarms, Cuts Deployed Nuke Force By 50

A model of a Minuteman 3 nuclear missile used for training by missile maintenance crews at F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo. -- AP View Enlarged Image

Disarming America: The U.S. has announced plans to place 50 nuclear missiles in storage as part of its commitment to the New START Treaty signed with Russia, ignoring Moscow's violation of another arms treaty.

The Pentagon announced Tuesday the United States' Strategic Force Structure designed "to comply with the New START Treaty," as a Defense Department press release notes. It means that 50 Minuteman III missiles — out of a current force of 450 — will be removed from their silos and stored away.

The silos will be kept "warm," that is, available for future use and for re-insertion of the missiles.

But it is doubtful that an administration that has as its goal a world without nuclear weapons and that promised the Russians "flexibility" in the gutting of U.S. missile defense would ever even contemplate such a move. The missiles are gone.

The Air Force now deploys three ICBM wings on its bases in Wyoming (Francis E. Warren), North Dakota (Minot), and Montana (Malmstrom). Each operates 150 ICBMs, with a squadron consisting of 50. The Obama administration proposes getting rid of one of those squadrons.

The remaining 400 deployed ICBMs would be the lowest number since 1962, according to a history of the ICBM force written by Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

He says that the U.S. had 203 deployed ICBMs in 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, with the force expanding rapidly to 597 the following year and topping 1,000 in 1966.

The question is why. The New START Treaty was designed for a bipolar world that no longer exists. It ignores China's rapidly growing and increasingly deadly military and missile force as well as threats from an unstable North Korea and a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran.

The president has said he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons, but so far it seems to mean only a world without U.S. nukes.

Meanwhile, Russia is taking the other route, making sure that its arsenal is updated and ready. It recently had its strategic forces carry out a large-scale military drill that included the test-launch of two land-based ICBMs and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Russia has also been testing the Yars-M ballistic missile, a weapon with a range prohibited by the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

The INF prohibits America and Russia from developing, testing or possessing ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040914-696601-obama-to-reduce-nuke-missile-force.htm#ixzz32hHnE4YQ
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

The kenyan wants to destroy the United States Nukes also.....

[IB6UB9 42]

The kenyan wants to destroy the United States Nukes also.....

He's made US foreign policy the laughing stock of the world. Putin punked him and the rest of the West 7 ways to Sunday and it just keeps getting worse.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Should go back to the old days when a CIA op would have been sent in to assassinate Putin

[Dakine10 5,452]

Should go back to the old days when a CIA op would have been sent in to assassinate Putin

Russia and the US have one thing in common when it comes to leaders. You always have at least a 50-50 chance of the next jackass being worse than the current one.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Russia and the US have one thing in common when it comes to leaders. You always have at least a 50-50 chance of the next jackass being worse than the current one.

Yep. I don't understand why assassination of leaders has been ruled out.

Oops. Guess I am now being surveyed by theCIA now. Just need to mention the Catcher in the Rye- sigh!

[BatmanUSA 105]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/28/ukraines-broken-nuclear-promises-248003.html

There's another, even more detailed and binding, treaty that Russia's actions in Crimea defy. In 1975, the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Accords, which bound the leading players of the Cold War to respect each others' international boundaries.

The Soviets pressed for the treaty because they feared that the West was trying to persuade East Germany to rejoin its prosperous Western neighbor. They set up a fundamental principle that international borders could not be neatly drawn around Europe's different ethnic communities.

In scrapping the norms of Helsinki Accords, Putin has opened the whole post-Soviet security structure of the region to debate. That could open up multiple cans of worms...............

--------------------------------------------------

So did the U.S. scrap the norms of the Helsinki Accords, when it pressed for the reunification of Germany.?

Has NATO opened up multiple cans of worms with its 20 years of expansion/aggression and its continued attempts to continue the Cold War and isolate Russia....?

[IB6UB9 42]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/28/ukraines-broken-nuclear-promises-248003.html

So did the U.S. scrap the norms of the Helsinki Accords, when it pressed for the reunification of Germany.?

Has NATO opened up multiple cans of worms with its 20 years of expansion/aggression and its continued attempts to continue the Cold War and isolate Russia....?

The Baltics and Poland couldn't get into NATO fast enough...they begged to be in NATO. Why is that you think? Unless your a repressive dictator there's a reason nobody wants to be neighbors with Russia. It's the USSR all over again... Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, etc..

Edited May 26, 2014 by Kathryn41
edited at OPs request

[BatmanUSA 105]

why does NATO need to expand.??

NATO has been the aggressor for the past 20 years...

In the past it was the USSR putting nukes in Cuba, now it is NATO in eastern Europe.. you can argue the finer points but its basically the same thing.

China is a neighbor of Russia and they seem to be getting along quite well. Not that I quite like either of those governments but it sounds like you are cheering for WW3..

Maybe if NATO didn't support the revolt in Ukraine and maybe if the new government in Ukraine didn't assault the Russians in Crimea things would have been different... The U.S. sends its military all over the world when people ask for help.. and that's what Russia did in Crimea... Except that Russia took Crimea and caused very few deaths, while the U.S. causes thousands of deaths and then spends billions of dollars trying to fix a country where those people still hate America.. Meanwhile the Chinese are quietly laughing, quietly building their military as Obama downsizes ours...

I do not see Russia as having a repressive government, as compared to the U.S. considering all the recent news about NSA spying on American citizens.

Please explain to me exactly what has Russia done to piss off Ukraine prior to the invasion of Crimea. I have asked this question to other Ukrainians.. they tell me Ukraine has poor living conditions, infrastructure, and economy.. But they can never explain how this is Russia's fault. Can you.?

[BatmanUSA 105]

The Baltics and Poland couldn't get into NATO fast enough...they begged to be in NATO. Why is that you think? Unless your a repressive dictator there's a reason nobody wants to be neighbors with Russia. It's the USSR all over again... Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, etc..

you didn't answer my question about who violated the Helsinki Treaty first.?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Kathryn41
quote edited at the OP's request

[IB6UB9 42]

why does NATO need to expand.??

NATO has been the aggressor for the past 20 years...

In the past it was the USSR putting nukes in Cuba, now it is NATO in eastern Europe.. you can argue the finer points but its basically the same thing.

China is a neighbor of Russia and they seem to be getting along quite well. Not that I quite like either of those governments but it sounds like you are cheering for WW3..

Maybe if NATO didn't support the revolt in Ukraine and maybe if the new government in Ukraine didn't assault the Russians in Crimea things would have been different... The U.S. sends its military all over the world when people ask for help.. and that's what Russia did in Crimea... Except that Russia took Crimea and caused very few deaths, while the U.S. causes thousands of deaths and then spends billions of dollars trying to fix a country where those people still hate America.. Meanwhile the Chinese are quietly laughing, quietly building their military as Obama downsizes ours...

I do not see Russia as having a repressive government, as compared to the U.S. considering all the recent news about NSA spying on American citizens.

Please explain to me exactly what has Russia done to piss off Ukraine prior to the invasion of Crimea. I have asked this question to other Ukrainians.. they tell me Ukraine has poor living conditions, infrastructure, and economy.. But they can never explain how this is Russia's fault. Can you.?

Someone's been watching too much RT news. Ukrainian troops assaulted Russians in the Krim? That's the first I heard of that. Chechnya, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova...wherever you have a large Russian speaking population (thank Stalin for that) you have a malignant cancer. Don't believe me? Ask non Russian speaking peoples in those countries I just mentioned. As far as people in the Krim asking for help... lol....

http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/taras-kuzio/crime-and-politics-in-crimea-Aksyonov-Goblin-Wikileaks-Cables <---- Just like that KGB dictator in Moscow to use mafia to get what he wants. He did it in St. Petersburg and Sochi just to name a few.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Rkom1RpKA

[IB6UB9 42]

Anyone thinking of becoming a journalist in Russia? If the answer is "yes" then you may want to check out the links down below first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/russia#.U4KyS_ldVEM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia

[BatmanUSA 105]

Someone's been watching too much RT news. Ukrainian troops assaulted Russians in the Krim? That's the first I heard of that. Chechnya, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova...wherever you have a large Russian speaking population (thank Stalin for that) you have a malignant cancer. Don't believe me? Ask non Russian speaking peoples in those countries I just mentioned. As far as people in the Krim asking for help... lol....

http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/taras-kuzio/crime-and-politics-in-crimea-Aksyonov-Goblin-Wikileaks-Cables <---- Just like that KGB dictator in Moscow to use mafia to get what he wants. He did it in St. Petersburg and Sochi just to name a few.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Rkom1RpKA

actually I do not watch RT news because I know it is propaganda...

not Ukrainian troops, but the new government did assault the Russians in Krim thru their discriminatory laws.. Quite bold action for an illegal government who came to power thru a coup which was supported by NATO and the EU.

Again, can you please explain what has Russia done, prior to the invasion of Krim, to piss off the people of Ukraine..

Why do you say Russians are a malignant cancer that must be wiped off the face of the earth.? That's exactly what Hitler said about the Jews.?

I have heard that the revolt in Kiev was lead by facists, but I never believed it until just now reading your posts..

Are you from Krim.?

Honestly, I am not arguing with you, I am trying to better understand what is going on and why... So please, instead of posting links, just explain to me about what you personally know/think and explain to me what did Russia do, prior to the invasion of Crimea, to make you so hateful of Russia...?

[BatmanUSA 105]

and I do not need to watch a one hour documentary about Putin, I know about his history.. But you seem to be angry and hateful of all Russians, not just the current Russian government... but why.? what has Russia done to you/Ukraine to make you hate all Russians.?

[IB6UB9 42]

actually I do not watch RT news because I know it is propaganda...

not Ukrainian troops, but the new government did assault the Russians in Krim thru their discriminatory laws.. Quite bold action for an illegal government who came to power thru a coup which was supported by NATO and the EU.

Again, can you please explain what has Russia done, prior to the invasion of Krim, to piss off the people of Ukraine..

Why do you say Russians are a malignant cancer that must be wiped off the face of the earth.? That's exactly what Hitler said about the Jews.?

I have heard that the revolt in Kiev was lead by facists, but I never believed it until just now reading your posts..

Are you from Krim.?

Honestly, I am not arguing with you, I am trying to better understand what is going on and why... So please, instead of posting links, just explain to me about what you personally know/think and explain to me what did Russia do, prior to the invasion of Crimea, to make you so hateful of Russia...?

That is nothing more than Kremlin propaganda. The RADA suggested doing away with Russian as an official language in Eastern Ukraine and it was vetoed right away by Yatsenyuk.

http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2008/04/putin-ukraine-is-not-even-a-na.php <---- Putin loves Ukraine and Ukrainians. He has an 80+% approval rating in Russia. This dictator who would have Ukrainians licking his boots is loved by Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution#Involvement_of_outside_forces

On the other hand, Russia's involvement in the election was more direct and heavily on the side of Prime Minister Yanukovych. The extent of this involvement is still contested but some facts are indisputable such as multiple meetings between (hugely popular in Ukraine at the time^[2]) Russian president Vladimir Putin, Kuchma and Yanukovych before and during the elections. Putin repeatedly congratulated Yanukovych while the results were still contested, which was soon to embarrass both parties. Yanukovych received a much more preferential treatment in Russian media, and was surrounded by Russian consultants known to be close to the Kremlin throughout the election cycle.^[2] During the protests Russian media portrayed the Ukrainian protesters as irresponsible, led astray by Western agents and Russian TVbroadcast a pro-Yanukovych message.^[2][42][43] In a poll held in November 2005, 54% of the Russian respondents believed the Orange Revolution was "A power struggle between different groups of politicians and oligarchs"

Russia..not Russians. As far as being a cancer goes... look at the Krim and Eastern Ukraine.

http://www.euractiv.com/europes-east/russia-keeps-threatening-neighbo-news-530198

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/europe/russia-putting-a-strong-arm-on-neighbors.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia

Now let's look at those nifty Russian sponsored dictators who border Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov#Accusations_of_human_rights_abuses <---- He's a real winner for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko <---- another winner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Belarus <--- that's called "Controlled Democracy". It's a another word for "dictator".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev <--- another rerpressive dictator that neighbors Russia and is supported by the Kremlin.

Calling me a "fascist"? Russians love to call anyone who disagrees with them a "fascist". The biggest fascist state anywhere near Europe flies the red white and blue tri color and calls that repressive dictator in the Kremlin "President Putin".