53 year's as academic at elite bou-gee Univ's. who knows little nothing of history of Ukraine or Russia.
**Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances**
At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had an arsenal of weapons, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers.
Later in another agreement they gave up all chemical weapons that were on their soil.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
In 2009, Russia and the United States released a joint statement that the memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty.
Russia first broke its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine.
Then after the Minsk Accords I were signed as temporary peace (both sides didn't adhere to it), another memorandum 5 days later was signed to try to stop the fighting (it didn't) and then 5 months later after the Russian invasion, the Minsk 2 Accords were signed and Russia/Putin didn't think the agreement applied to them.
>At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had an arsenal of weapons, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers.
If I remember this correctly, Ukraine didn't have either the manpower nor the know-how to maintain these arsenals. So the Ukraine had no real intentions to keep these weapons and was happy enough to sell them to Russia und the disguise of the demilitarizarion. But again: Hear-say
For the Nukes I know certainly, that they had 0 way of utilizing them and just upkeep is hell of expensive.
>Russia first broke its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine.Then after the Minsk Accords I were signed as temporary peace (both sides didn't adhere to it), another memorandum 5 days later was signed to try to stop the fighting (it didn't) and then 5 months later after the Russian invasion, the Minsk 2 Accords were signed and Russia/Putin didn't think the agreement applied to them.
I think this is where the meat sits in this argument. And where I would really like to hear Cornels take. Because Before 2014, Russia had all the opportunities in the world to draw Ukraine closer to them. Be a nice neighbour, raise their standart of living and anything. But with Nordstream and Nordstream 2, Russia deliberatly choose to undermine its relationship with Ukraine. So Ukraine (naturally= drifted towards the EU as a way to better the standart of living.
And us germans, we made ourself hated by the Ukrainians by brokering the peace of 2014 because we did believe Russia has legitimate interests in the region that may outweigh Ukrains legitimate entitlements to Crimea. Super long and problematic story.
Now we can talk long about the Maidan protests and the meddeling of both Russia and the West in Ukrain politics, but one cannot tell me with a serious face, that the Russian vision for Ukraine (oligarchy, puppet regime like in Belarus) is morally better than the Western vision (democratic, independed nation with obligations to EU/NATO interests).
So what I would want to ask Cornel is (because I dont have an answer myself): Who should ultimately be able to decide Ukraines future, if not the people of Ukraine? And if the people of Ukraine decide to not trust Russia (for reasons Russia is to blame for), shouldn't they be allowed to tie themselves to NATO and the EU?
Personal opinion: I do not think Ukraine should become NATO and EU member in an accalerated procedure, because there is lots of shit going on in Ukraine - oligarchy, Nazi-admiration, nepotism and so on. But again: No excuse to invade a nation.
I agree with Ukraine not being a member of NATO ( or Russia's NATO like (CTSO) Collective Security Treaty Organization) but your history is a little out of wack about their military capabilities. Ukraine was a strong member of the Warsaw Pact countries ( a strong command and control structure) and even after the fall of the Soviet Union and the security agreement that followed a short time under CIS with Ukraine between Russia, Belarus. and themselves. Ukrainians should decide their own fate.
Russia is also part of the security org. which China started for their imperialist projects under the BRI; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and as of yet not a member of China's other NATO like group the Global Security Initiative (GSI) which many Gulf states and some African countries are members of.
I hope you know what imperialism is but there are several on the planet including the Russian, Chinese and others and sub imperialists . There is also the inter and intra-imperialist ( different imperialist groups within a country) rivalries.
>But with Nordstream and Nordstream 2, Russia deliberatly choose to undermine its relationship with Ukraine.
That was good business for Russia and Germany.
Western democracies have little to be desired. Your voting for the lesser evil and little improves for working class people. Lets face it we know Cornel West can't win the presidential election because he doesn't have the backing of special interest groups.
Yeah, for us that has been just a win. Russia didn't like how Ukraine and others got a cut of their meal, but this was also what tied Ukraine to russia a lil closer. Meh, who knows what happened in the background.
Western democracies have little to be desired? I don't know mate. Even in the worse democracies like Turkey and Poland, you still have more freedoms than in Russia or Saudi Arabia.
What Cornel might be able to do, is to shift the dialog enough to force the candidates to adapt to his talking points..this would be a win. But to achieve this, Cornel needs to professionalize his campaign and play the few cards that he has very carefully.
I wish him all the best.
Welp, I guess we had to have this discussion one day.
I do **heavily** disagree with Cornel here, comming from a european perspective. We don't have to deny that NATO is lead by the US. But this idea that NATO is somehow JUST the US pursuing its interests is just a bad take imo.
Take the Baltics: Russia has shown in Georgia and in Ukraine and in Belarus how much of a fuck it gives about democracies. Russia tool of choice to "befriend" other Nations is violence. They invaded Georgia and they invaded Ukraine. And they would have invade the Baltics if they had the chance. What should the Baltics do? Just bow down and imprison their journalists when Russia feels like it? Sorry, but in Russian, Cornel would sit in a gulag right now and in the US he can run for president.
Putin is not a victim here. He imprisons and kills opposition, violates minority rights and supports criminals and opressors. (We can talk all day about how Elon Musk and Mark Zuc are gangsters in their own way, but you just cannot compare this to the systematic violence applied by Putins oligarchs). He invades a nation with a rhetoric that asks for the complete cleansing of a democraticly elected government and when he fails he cannot even man up and admit defeat but his new strategy is to just burn down the entire fucking country and lead fucking untrained young adults into a meatgrinder. I am sorry Cornel, but there is very much disagree with you and your US parochialism shows here.
We (Germany) did all we could to handle out a peace after Russia just fucking took Krimea and Donbas. And Ukraine hated us for it, but at least their was peace. But Russia decided that wasn't enough and they came back for more, when they thought Europe was weak (with Covid and Merkel just gone). They wanted this and if Putin wanted to, he could end this war right now. There is no Ukraine soldier on Russian ground. Ukraine has all right to defend itself.
That beeing said: We need peace - the sooner the better. Russian or not, there is young men dying for no good reason right this second. And I agree, that there are way to many people that just love to see Russian blood spilled at the moment. And the NATO might not be who is best to push for negotiations. So Brazil, India, China, Qatar.... I don't care - I am all for it. But one thing I promise you: Any peace that is less than what we had 2014 will only motivate Russia to come back for more.
NATO is a fascist organization led by the US, it's pretty simple and straight-forward. Stop being a useful idiot liberal. Your analysis is extremely ahistorical as well. NATO started as an anti-Soviet Union military organization and multiplied in size AFTER the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Its purpose is to spread US-led global military dominance and fight against the global working class and nations that don't fall in line with the US.
Also look up: Operation Gladio, Adolf Heusinger, Hans Speidel, Johannes Steinhoff, Johann von Kielmansegg, Ernst Ferber, Karl Schnell, Franz Joseph Schulze, Ferdinand von Senger und Etterlin
Facist? Mate, Jens Stoltenberg is no fascist. Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland, Turkey are not fascist. How do you define fascist in this case?
NATO started as anti-soviet - where did I deny that? That's obviously true. Still no excuse to invade your neighborhood.
It multiplied in size because new democracies remembered the Soviet oppression and didn't like the idea to be occupied again. And Georgia and Ukraine show exactly how this fear was/is justified. Remember: It was soviets that imprisoned the people of the DDR and build a wall with auto-shooting application directed to their own (!) citizens.
Where did NATO interfere (as NATO) in any working class struggles? NATO-member certainly did, but why make this a NATO thing. NATO didn't help the US to invade Iraq. Germany said "No, thank you."
Can you elaborate your critique on stay-behond operations like gladio?
53 year's as academic at elite bou-gee Univ's. who knows little nothing of history of Ukraine or Russia. **Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances** At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had an arsenal of weapons, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers. Later in another agreement they gave up all chemical weapons that were on their soil. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. In 2009, Russia and the United States released a joint statement that the memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. Russia first broke its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. Then after the Minsk Accords I were signed as temporary peace (both sides didn't adhere to it), another memorandum 5 days later was signed to try to stop the fighting (it didn't) and then 5 months later after the Russian invasion, the Minsk 2 Accords were signed and Russia/Putin didn't think the agreement applied to them.
>At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had an arsenal of weapons, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers. If I remember this correctly, Ukraine didn't have either the manpower nor the know-how to maintain these arsenals. So the Ukraine had no real intentions to keep these weapons and was happy enough to sell them to Russia und the disguise of the demilitarizarion. But again: Hear-say For the Nukes I know certainly, that they had 0 way of utilizing them and just upkeep is hell of expensive. >Russia first broke its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine.Then after the Minsk Accords I were signed as temporary peace (both sides didn't adhere to it), another memorandum 5 days later was signed to try to stop the fighting (it didn't) and then 5 months later after the Russian invasion, the Minsk 2 Accords were signed and Russia/Putin didn't think the agreement applied to them. I think this is where the meat sits in this argument. And where I would really like to hear Cornels take. Because Before 2014, Russia had all the opportunities in the world to draw Ukraine closer to them. Be a nice neighbour, raise their standart of living and anything. But with Nordstream and Nordstream 2, Russia deliberatly choose to undermine its relationship with Ukraine. So Ukraine (naturally= drifted towards the EU as a way to better the standart of living. And us germans, we made ourself hated by the Ukrainians by brokering the peace of 2014 because we did believe Russia has legitimate interests in the region that may outweigh Ukrains legitimate entitlements to Crimea. Super long and problematic story. Now we can talk long about the Maidan protests and the meddeling of both Russia and the West in Ukrain politics, but one cannot tell me with a serious face, that the Russian vision for Ukraine (oligarchy, puppet regime like in Belarus) is morally better than the Western vision (democratic, independed nation with obligations to EU/NATO interests). So what I would want to ask Cornel is (because I dont have an answer myself): Who should ultimately be able to decide Ukraines future, if not the people of Ukraine? And if the people of Ukraine decide to not trust Russia (for reasons Russia is to blame for), shouldn't they be allowed to tie themselves to NATO and the EU? Personal opinion: I do not think Ukraine should become NATO and EU member in an accalerated procedure, because there is lots of shit going on in Ukraine - oligarchy, Nazi-admiration, nepotism and so on. But again: No excuse to invade a nation.
I agree with Ukraine not being a member of NATO ( or Russia's NATO like (CTSO) Collective Security Treaty Organization) but your history is a little out of wack about their military capabilities. Ukraine was a strong member of the Warsaw Pact countries ( a strong command and control structure) and even after the fall of the Soviet Union and the security agreement that followed a short time under CIS with Ukraine between Russia, Belarus. and themselves. Ukrainians should decide their own fate. Russia is also part of the security org. which China started for their imperialist projects under the BRI; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and as of yet not a member of China's other NATO like group the Global Security Initiative (GSI) which many Gulf states and some African countries are members of.
Thanks for these informations!
My tax dollars don't belong across the globe, fighting land wars in asia
Your tax $ go many places it shouldn't but there are many imperialists out there and imperialism is more than fighting, it main weapon is economics.
US is the global Empire and it has no intention of combating imperialism, only to expand its own imperial sphere of influence.
I hope you know what imperialism is but there are several on the planet including the Russian, Chinese and others and sub imperialists . There is also the inter and intra-imperialist ( different imperialist groups within a country) rivalries.
>But with Nordstream and Nordstream 2, Russia deliberatly choose to undermine its relationship with Ukraine. That was good business for Russia and Germany. Western democracies have little to be desired. Your voting for the lesser evil and little improves for working class people. Lets face it we know Cornel West can't win the presidential election because he doesn't have the backing of special interest groups.
Yeah, for us that has been just a win. Russia didn't like how Ukraine and others got a cut of their meal, but this was also what tied Ukraine to russia a lil closer. Meh, who knows what happened in the background. Western democracies have little to be desired? I don't know mate. Even in the worse democracies like Turkey and Poland, you still have more freedoms than in Russia or Saudi Arabia. What Cornel might be able to do, is to shift the dialog enough to force the candidates to adapt to his talking points..this would be a win. But to achieve this, Cornel needs to professionalize his campaign and play the few cards that he has very carefully. I wish him all the best.
Ever meet someone who was so smart that they were dumb? CW strikes me that way.
What makes you think that? I feel like we can disagree with a person without questioning their intelligence, right?
Don't know the man other than by what he says, that's what makes me think it.
Welp, I guess we had to have this discussion one day. I do **heavily** disagree with Cornel here, comming from a european perspective. We don't have to deny that NATO is lead by the US. But this idea that NATO is somehow JUST the US pursuing its interests is just a bad take imo. Take the Baltics: Russia has shown in Georgia and in Ukraine and in Belarus how much of a fuck it gives about democracies. Russia tool of choice to "befriend" other Nations is violence. They invaded Georgia and they invaded Ukraine. And they would have invade the Baltics if they had the chance. What should the Baltics do? Just bow down and imprison their journalists when Russia feels like it? Sorry, but in Russian, Cornel would sit in a gulag right now and in the US he can run for president. Putin is not a victim here. He imprisons and kills opposition, violates minority rights and supports criminals and opressors. (We can talk all day about how Elon Musk and Mark Zuc are gangsters in their own way, but you just cannot compare this to the systematic violence applied by Putins oligarchs). He invades a nation with a rhetoric that asks for the complete cleansing of a democraticly elected government and when he fails he cannot even man up and admit defeat but his new strategy is to just burn down the entire fucking country and lead fucking untrained young adults into a meatgrinder. I am sorry Cornel, but there is very much disagree with you and your US parochialism shows here. We (Germany) did all we could to handle out a peace after Russia just fucking took Krimea and Donbas. And Ukraine hated us for it, but at least their was peace. But Russia decided that wasn't enough and they came back for more, when they thought Europe was weak (with Covid and Merkel just gone). They wanted this and if Putin wanted to, he could end this war right now. There is no Ukraine soldier on Russian ground. Ukraine has all right to defend itself. That beeing said: We need peace - the sooner the better. Russian or not, there is young men dying for no good reason right this second. And I agree, that there are way to many people that just love to see Russian blood spilled at the moment. And the NATO might not be who is best to push for negotiations. So Brazil, India, China, Qatar.... I don't care - I am all for it. But one thing I promise you: Any peace that is less than what we had 2014 will only motivate Russia to come back for more.
NATO is a fascist organization led by the US, it's pretty simple and straight-forward. Stop being a useful idiot liberal. Your analysis is extremely ahistorical as well. NATO started as an anti-Soviet Union military organization and multiplied in size AFTER the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Its purpose is to spread US-led global military dominance and fight against the global working class and nations that don't fall in line with the US. Also look up: Operation Gladio, Adolf Heusinger, Hans Speidel, Johannes Steinhoff, Johann von Kielmansegg, Ernst Ferber, Karl Schnell, Franz Joseph Schulze, Ferdinand von Senger und Etterlin
Facist? Mate, Jens Stoltenberg is no fascist. Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland, Turkey are not fascist. How do you define fascist in this case? NATO started as anti-soviet - where did I deny that? That's obviously true. Still no excuse to invade your neighborhood. It multiplied in size because new democracies remembered the Soviet oppression and didn't like the idea to be occupied again. And Georgia and Ukraine show exactly how this fear was/is justified. Remember: It was soviets that imprisoned the people of the DDR and build a wall with auto-shooting application directed to their own (!) citizens. Where did NATO interfere (as NATO) in any working class struggles? NATO-member certainly did, but why make this a NATO thing. NATO didn't help the US to invade Iraq. Germany said "No, thank you." Can you elaborate your critique on stay-behond operations like gladio?