Russia is not looking to aggrandize territory. Vital Russian interests are at stake and the political instability of Ukraine directly threatens those interests. Russia has also historically been concerned about security along its southern flank. Recall the Crimean War in the 19th century.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraineâ??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine�¢??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.[/quote]
Haven’t had time to get thoroughly thru thia thread since the updates (need to read the big article) but so far mostly in complete agreement with you Bismark. C-dog is way off the mark too. Doesn’t take much of anything to ignore a treaty.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine�?�¢??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.[/quote]
Haven’t had time to get thoroughly thru thia thread since the updates (need to read the big article) but so far mostly in complete agreement with you Bismark. C-dog is way off the mark too. Doesn’t take much of anything to ignore a treaty.[/quote]
Especially true in this case. Ukraine gets invaded and needs help and we don’t follow our terms on the treaty, what are they going to do, they are not really in a position to enforce the treaty at that point. Also with government power changes the treaty doesn’t really apply.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine�?�¢??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.[/quote]
C-dog is way off the mark too. Doesn’t take much of anything to ignore a treaty.[/quote]
this is an example of why perhaps some on T-Nation mistakenly take some of my posting article content for racism.
i generally give one or more paragraphs from news articles. the paragraphs in my post were pulled from the article about the treaty, not my take on the situation. not an opinion.
i put that out there as a reminder that clinton, major, yeltsin and kuchma signed a treaty.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine�?�¢??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.[/quote]
Haven’t had time to get thoroughly thru thia thread since the updates (need to read the big article) but so far mostly in complete agreement with you Bismark. C-dog is way off the mark too. Doesn’t take much of anything to ignore a treaty.[/quote]
The 1994 memorandum does NOT in any way obligate the US or anybody else to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the event of war with any of the signatories. Here is the full text of the document:
All that it says is that the three signatories will not use force against Ukraine, or use economic coercion, but it does not obligate any of the parties involved towards military action. The best it does is require the signatories to immediately seek action from the UN Security Council in the event of a breach of this agreement (but all the signatories but Ukraine have veto power in the SC). Even if it did, there would still be some wiggle room for the US depending on how the US went about things. If the agreement passed the US senate as an actual treaty, rather than a CEA or SEA, then the Treaty and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution obligates the US to honor it, but luckily the memorandum itself does not require any military action so this does not even matter.
Curious what the U.S. angle on this is?
^
From what I’ve gathered from the news and people I’ve talked to, they’re trying to make it out like Cold War politics are still going on.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
From what I’ve gathered from the news and people I’ve talked to, they’re trying to make it out like Cold War politics are still going on. [/quote]
I think Putin is just trying to get back at Obama for not coming to his olympics.
Also heard yesterday Obama is considering boycotting the G8 which is also in Sochi. Shows how personally he is taking it as this just happened a few days ago and G8 is in June.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma - the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
Putin installed 150,000 troops along Ukraine�??�?�¢??s borders after the overthrow of Moscow ally Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European protesters.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Treaty obligations, especially those concerning security regimes,
have been ignored many times in world politics. The international system is characterized by anarchy; that is, no supranational authority exists which regulates behavior among states. International “law”, which is better described as a set of institutionalized norms which states may or may not chose to abide by, lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The U.S. and the U.K. will not act against their self interest for the sake of what amounts to little more than a piece of paper at this point.[/quote]
Haven’t had time to get thoroughly thru thia thread since the updates (need to read the big article) but so far mostly in complete agreement with you Bismark. C-dog is way off the mark too. Doesn’t take much of anything to ignore a treaty.[/quote]
The 1994 memorandum does NOT in any way obligate the US or anybody else to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the event of war with any of the signatories. Here is the full text of the document:
All that it says is that the three signatories will not use force against Ukraine, or use economic coercion, but it does not obligate any of the parties involved towards military action. The best it does is require the signatories to immediately seek action from the UN Security Council in the event of a breach of this agreement (but all the signatories but Ukraine have veto power in the SC). Even if it did, there would still be some wiggle room for the US depending on how the US went about things. If the agreement passed the US senate as an actual treaty, rather than a CEA or SEA, then the Treaty and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution obligates the US to honor it, but luckily the memorandum itself does not require any military action so this does not even matter.[/quote]
This is my understanding of it as well. A memorandum is not a mutual defense treaty.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
From what I’ve gathered from the news and people I’ve talked to, they’re trying to make it out like Cold War politics are still going on. [/quote]
In a very real way, this is exactly what is happening, at least on the American side with a good deal of partisan politics thrown in to potentially make this a very dangerous situation. On the Russian side of things, we are just doing what Russia has always done in situations like this.
From the perspective of Russians, including myself, there is nothing special about what is going on or Putin’s response to this. This is not an international political game, and it is not Putin posturing to increase his international image. He is doing what Russian leaders usually do when a Slavic issue arises that threaten Russians and other Slavs: act in the best interests of the Russian people first and in the interests of Slavs as a whole next. Russia has, historically, been the protector of the Slavic peoples and it has sought to protect Russians no matter where they are.
Situations like this have played out several times, even in recent history. Just a few years ago, the Ossetian population decided to secede from Georgia and form their own nation, and Georgia responded by bombing civilians. Russia invaded to protect the Ossetians (although arguably a little too brutally). Of course, this wasn’t really covered mush in American news outlets for several reasons, one of which is the headline “Russia invades Georgia” would have caused some very hilarious reactions in America.
My point here is that as far as Russia is concerned, as long as a large amount Russian and Slavic lives are at stake, which in the event of a civil war in Ukraine is a foregone conclusion, Russia has a duty to act to prevent this from occurring, even if that means occupying Ukraine until a new and stable government can be put in place, and nothing is going to stop us, especially the US no matter who is president of either nation. This is not a political pissing match with the US or a power grab by Putin. We already have an established hegemony among the Slavic states and the United States is not in any way a threat to that, even if the EU accord had been signed by Ukraine before this broke out. The take away here is that the US will not be able to force Putin into backing down if it is decided that Ukraine must be occupied to protect Russians and Slavs in general, and if the US forces the issue, it will probably mean war which I do not want at all. I have spent as much of my life in the US as I did in the Soviet Union and I do not want to see a war.
As far as the American side of this is concerned, Americans don’t seem to care when Russia does what it has always done in the East until it involves a country they have heard of which is the case here so it gets blown way out of proportion. It doesn’t help that a lot of top US military and political officials remember the cold war all too well and there is a lot of anger and resentment towards Russians left over. Plus, a lot of American policy makers seem to be unable to accept that this issue just may have nothing at all to do with America so of course it is just a ploy by Putin to seize power and humiliate America. And then you have the partisan hacks who look at this on point and shout: “Look! Russia is doing exactly what it always does in situations like this when Russians and Slavs are in danger! This proves how weak our current president is!”
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
From what I’ve gathered from the news and people I’ve talked to, they’re trying to make it out like Cold War politics are still going on. [/quote]
I think Putin is just trying to get back at Obama for not coming to his olympics.
Also heard yesterday Obama is considering boycotting the G8 which is also in Sochi. Shows how personally he is taking it as this just happened a few days ago and G8 is in June.[/quote]
Nah, any bad blood over the Olympics was lost when we won the most Gold medals 
Of course that should be expected since it was the Winter Olympics and most parts of Russia only have two seasons: Winter and slightly less Winter.
That’s a very clear write up Dr. Matt. I appreciate seeing your perspective as someone who’s bright enough to understand politics and having spent so much time in both the US and Russia.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Of course, this wasn’t really covered mush in American news outlets for several reasons, one of which is the headline “Russia invades Georgia” would have caused some very hilarious reactions in America.
[/quote]
I distinctly recall exactly that confusion taking place among some sorority girls in an international relations class I was in at the time. The craziest thing was that they didn’t even seem all that perturbed, either way. “Wow. You’d think people would be talking about this more…” Yeah, you’d think so.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
That’s a very clear write up Dr. Matt. I appreciate seeing your perspective as someone who’s bright enough to understand politics and having spent so much time in both the US and Russia. [/quote]
No problem. I just hope that Obama and the people who make the real foreign policy decisions in the US have the sense to realize that this has literally nothing to do with America, American interests, or who the American President is and just back off. There are many things that Russians will back down on, but in situations like this we absolutely will not. Our sense of responsibility to protect ourselves and the Slavic people as a whole is too deeply ingrained in us.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Of course, this wasn’t really covered mush in American news outlets for several reasons, one of which is the headline “Russia invades Georgia” would have caused some very hilarious reactions in America.
[/quote]
I distinctly recall exactly that confusion taking place among some sorority girls in an international relations class I was in at the time. The craziest thing was that they didn’t even seem all that perturbed, either way. “Wow. You’d think people would be talking about this more…” Yeah, you’d think so.[/quote]
This is funny, especially considering I was just joking (well, mostly). I bet they would have had a stronger reaction if it had read “New York” or something like that.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
From what I’ve gathered from the news and people I’ve talked to, they’re trying to make it out like Cold War politics are still going on. [/quote]
I think Putin is just trying to get back at Obama for not coming to his olympics.
Also heard yesterday Obama is considering boycotting the G8 which is also in Sochi. Shows how personally he is taking it as this just happened a few days ago and G8 is in June.[/quote]
Nah, any bad blood over the Olympics was lost when we won the most Gold medals Of course that should be expected since it was the Winter Olympics and most parts of Russia only have two seasons: Winter and slightly less Winter.[/quote]
Bwahaha!
So, so funny.
I also second the thanks for jumping in on the thread. I’m interested in the matter but admittedly do not know the details and it is likely impossible for me to draw a knowledgeable conclusion without knowing context and detail. Very clear summary and highly informative, thanks!
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Of course, this wasn’t really covered mush in American news outlets for several reasons, one of which is the headline “Russia invades Georgia” would have caused some very hilarious reactions in America.
[/quote]
I distinctly recall exactly that confusion taking place among some sorority girls in an international relations class I was in at the time. The craziest thing was that they didn’t even seem all that perturbed, either way. “Wow. You’d think people would be talking about this more…” Yeah, you’d think so.[/quote]
This is funny, especially considering I was just joking (well, mostly). I bet they would have had a stronger reaction if it had read “New York” or something like that.
[/quote]
Yes, we were in New York, so that would’ve suggested things like the shuttering of tanning salons and the closing of bars. I would’ve expected much concern, in that case.
On CNN, just a moment ago:
“…military exercises in the Black Sea. We’ll have more on that later in the night, but cming up next, what will the stars be wearing on the red carpet?”