War and Peace: Putin Targets Ukraine
Part 1It’s not just the words, one shudders to think that Russia — in response to such deployments, possible deployments of such ABM sites (and theoretically we can’t exclude the possibility) on Ru…on Ukrainian territory — will target Ukraine with her…her missile systems.
First, he prematurely congratulates Yanukovych. Then he prematurely flashes Ukraine with that missile hardon. (We gave up our own in the mid 90s.)
Well, at least his Freudian behavior hasn’t gone unnoticed in Washington.
Part 2The vast majority of the Ukrainian citizenry oppose accession to NATO. Nevertheless, the leader…the leadership of Ukraine has readily signed a piece of paper initiating the accession process. Is that democracy? Has anybody asked the citizenry whether they want it or not? Now, if it is done in this clandestine mode, it is in the same clandestine mode — without asking anyone’s permission — that military bases may also be deployed there along with some fourth or fifth ABM site. And what do we do then? It is then that we will be forced to retarget our missiles at facilities that we believe are a threat to our national security.
Russia has legitimate security concerns, and so does Ukraine. But when it comes to democracy, the Kremlin is no teacher. Putin’s patronizing overtures are just the tip of the missile. It is the whole gamut of neo-imperialist rhetoric, chauvinist-driven vandalism, and habitual meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs that will ultimately land Ukraine in NATO. The only thing that’s missing is a public relations campaign to neutralize the diehard Soviet antagonisms surrounding NATO.
Some experts believe that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO until the Russian Black Sea Fleet leaves Crimea. The rental agreement expires in 2017. Ukraine has promised to hold a referendum, once ripe for membership, and has vowed not to deploy ABM sites on her territory in the event of becoming a NATO member.
Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/2/12/71489.htm
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/2/13/71510.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/ukraine/index.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAd9pDNKyZZs&refer=home
http://video.bigmir.net/show/50139
1.000 dias de uma guerra que muda o mundo
22 hours ago
4 comments:
Silly foolish Ukraine gave up its only bargaining chip it had back in the 90s. Its nuclear arsenal!
Orest, we bargained away the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal dirt cheap.
Contrary to some Russian and Western clichés, we didn’t just “inherit” it from the USSR.
Ukraine had contributed the lion’s share of her intellectual capital and industrial capacity to the Soviet military-industrial complex. (Not to mention the enormous human price paid by Ukraine in the Holodomor — the “icebreaker” of collectivization and industrialization.)
One can't eat uranium.
One can't eat plutonium.
One can't eat missiles.
Ukraine got billions of dollars from the US, pursuant to Kuchma's "multi-vector" policy, to get rid of its missiles.
So roosha, and Putin, who poses bare-chested with his "fishing rod" for the benefit of stupid rooskies, threatens to point missiles at Ukraine.
So what?
What good does that do Putin or the stupid rooskies?
Elmer,
Frankly speaking, the money we got from the U.S. and the nuclear fuel we got from Russia pales by comparison to what we gave up.
We gave up 176 operational ICBMs (130 SS-19s, 46 SS-24s: 1,240 warheads); plus an additional 14 SS-24s not operationally deployed; plus a fleet of 44 Blackjacks and Bears, 29 Backfires (armed with up to 1,000 ALCMs); plus up to 3,000 tactical nukes. You do the math.
Accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was the key prerequisite for IMF loans and further U.S. aid. Essentially, we gave up our nukes only to end up being ruled by crooks. The rest is history.
The bottom line: The U.S. has a nuclear deterrent, and Ukraine does not.
Post a Comment