Taps Coogan – March 18th, 2022
Enjoy The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
Enjoy The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
The headlines are chalk full of stories about the start-and-stop negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in search of a diplomatic solution to the ongoing war. While we can hope that one will be found, it’s unlikely that a durable one exists.
There is a simple reason for that.
Russia has already agreed to a treaty with Ukraine (signed by current Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and logged at the UN), in which Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of its national sovereignty and the integrity of its 1994 borders. You can read the entire treaty here (PDF). It’s only four pages and includes nuggets like:
“The Russian Federation… 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 except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations”
And
“The Russian Federation… reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty
and the existing borders of Ukraine”
The problem with a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia is that there is simply no security guarantee that Russia can now provide to Ukraine that will be more believable than the ones that they already gave in exchange for all of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons.
Notably, the Budapest Memorandum didn’t contain any carve outs if Putin decides that Ukraine was never a real country to begin with or if Ukraine aspires to some day join NATO.
On the subject of NATO, NATO accession requires unanimous support from current NATO members, several of which have opposed NATO membership for Ukraine from the day Bush floated the idea in 2008 until the day Russia invaded. It was never a certain prospect.
That Russia is now asking for the complete “demilitarization” of Ukraine, not just guaranteed neutrality, after already promising Ukraine peace in exchange for denuclearization is pretty rich.
For that reason, Ukraine has signaled that it will only accept a deal with Russia if there is an international commitment to provide for the military defense of Ukraine in the event that Russia breaks the new treaty too.
Now, what do we call a defense guarantee for Ukraine backed by the major non-Russian military powers? Does NATO ring a bell?
Right there, we can see why a diplomatic solution is going to be hard to find, and unlikely to be durable if adopted. Ukrainians will never trust Russia and Russia will never trust a Ukraine not governed by a Russian backed government.
Russia’s further demands: “denazification” (a euphemism for replacing Ukraine’s government with a Russian backed one), territorial concessions, re-writes of Ukraine’s constitution, etc… sound quite a bit like the terms imposed on Japan after their total defeat and unconditional surrender in World War II. Making such demands as Russia struggles on the battlefield is absurd.
Would you like to be notified when we publish a new article on The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
Would you like to be notified when we publish a new article on The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
This is extremely one-sided. Russia’s move on Ukraine was prompted by NATO’s violation and expansion of the treaty to not expand into eastern Europe. Many have argued this was a defensive move on Russia’s part, you just won’t hear them above the din and clamor of the WEF agenda.
There was no such promises made to Russia, nor should there have been, given its history. Putin as late as 2005 said these countries were free to decide their own foreign policies. This is simply naked Russian aggression, pure and simple. Ukraine will be extremely difficult to subjugate, so Putin had better prepare for many more dead Ivans coming home.
I blame this on American “warmongers” that are hellbent on turning Ukraine into a major war whether the countries involved want it or not. History shows what has become known as “proxy wars” create profits for companies manufacturing weapons. The cost, of course, is then pawned off on taxpayers and a public preoccupied with personal concerns. In this case, we should be concerned that these fools are playing with fire. The article below argues this has little to do with Russia taking over the world or Ukraine’s national sovereignty. It is about money, energy, and power.
https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2021/11/warmongers-would-let-ukraine-become.html
Just to be clear, you blame Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a country not in NATO with no defense guarantee from the US and never offered anything except man portable weapons by the US, and which the US still rightly refuses to send anything other than man-portable weapons to despite an ongoing invasion, on the US? You’ve lost the plot buddy