Obama reneges on U.S. Ukraine “Security Assurances” after giving up Nukes

Obama made it clear yesterday at his Presser, that he had no intention to honor the Security Assurances commitment made to Ukraine. In fact, he flew the doors wide open for Putin to march forward. If you want to know why Iran will never give up their Nuclear ambitions, this is a prime example. This is why we cannot be trusted. It was the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia that signed an accord with Ukraine and made a commitment to them, understood as “Security Assurances” in return for them to giving up their Nukes. So let us look back what was said just a few months ago when Putin marched into the Crimea Peninsula. Bet they sure wished they had those nukes now. They would still be a Sovereign Nation. Bet Saddam Hussein had managed to keep them. Same for Syria. The world would look much different now. So let’s take a look.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

Mar 5, 2014 4:34 PM

For a brief period, Ukraine was the world’s third-largest nuclear power.

It gave up thousands of nuclear warheads inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a 1994 promise from the U.S. and Russia not to use force or threaten military action against the newly independent nation, a pledge Russian President Vladimir Putin repudiated yesterday after his troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

The 20-year-old Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the U.S., Russia, the U.K. and Ukraine, has moved to center stage in the standoff over the country’s Crimea region. Beyond the immediate crisis, Putin’s actions may have lasting consequences for future security talks, including efforts to further reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

The U.S. says Putin violated the accord by sending forces into Crimea and threatening to intervene elsewhere in Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians.

The Budapest agreement was considered a major diplomatic accomplishment two decades ago, when the U.S. and Russia shared an interest in limiting the number of nuclear-armed states and reducing the risk that former Soviet weapons would fall into the wrong hands.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 left Ukraine with a large nuclear arsenal — about 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads designed to strike the U.S. and 2,500 shorter-range nuclear weapons.

In 1994, the country’s leaders agreed under pressure from Russia and the U.S. to give up all of them in return for a pledge to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory. Ukraine completed the transfer of all its nuclear warheads to Russia in May 1996.

From Bloomberg March 2014

And boy did we shaft Qaddafi


In US-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away

The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large — far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb — missing some critical components but good enough to get the work started.

The haul was so large that President Bush, with photographers in tow, flew to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to celebrate a rare victory against nuclear proliferation. He briefly noted the success in his recent memoir, “Decision Points,” saying that with the surrender of the weapons Libya “resumed normal relations with the world.” Mr. Bush lifted restrictions on doing business with Libya and praised Colonel Qaddafi, saying his actions had “made our country and our world safer.

In Libya, the story was told differently. In an interview with The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary, “Nuclear Jihad,” Seif Qaddafi complained that the West never followed through on many of its promises.

 Syria and Iraq.

Then we have Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bet the wished they had finished their Nuclear ambitions. But Israel took care of business’

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor – BBC News

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: “The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose.”

It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly – either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981.

The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and pledged to defend their territory at all costs.

The Attack on Syria’s al-Kibar Nuclear Facility – inFocus

Israel’s September 6, 2007, attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility surprised the world—Syria most of all. The operation, executed by the Israeli Air Force (IAF), was reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, but with two noticeable differences. First, Israel remained silent following the al-Kibar bombing, while in 1981 it boasted publicly about the Iraq strike even before the pilots had returned. Second, whereas the international community knew of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plans in 1981, few were aware of the extent of Syria’s nuclear program in 2007.

The IAF’s attack raises two important questions: What was Syria hiding? Why did Israel feel compelled to launch a military strike? Subsequent investigations have painted a clearer picture of what took place at al-Kibar.

Finally, we have Lerch. This was back in March when Crimea was taken over by Russia. No mention of the “Assurances Agreement” which was part of the Nonproliferation Treaty.


10 Responses to “Obama reneges on U.S. Ukraine “Security Assurances” after giving up Nukes”

  1. POSTS WORTH READING — August 31, 2014 | Citizen Tom Says:

    […] Obama reneges on U.S. Ukraine “Security Assurances” after giving up Nukes at BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns, and Guts Comades!  Whatever anyone wants to say about the Ukraine, they gave up their nukes — to the very same nation that is now attacking them. We said we would not let it happen. […]

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Thanks for the link!


  2. Paladin Says:

    Just as Neville Chamberlain stood on the tarmac and declared “peace in our time” with the paper that secured it waving in the breeze, the Ukrainians learn the true value of diplomacy. This is why diplomacy is only a temporary solution. It is why one cannot form a peace upon a gentleman’s agreement, and why you need a strong military for when diplomacy inevitably fails.

    This is why the military’s job is to break things and kill people. In short, it is diplomacy by means of suppressing your opponent’s will and dominating him. What cannot be had by negotiation is taken by force. Putin’s actions in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine prove this. The dithering of the United States proves this, and ultimately, ISIS proves this. When you can talk, then the State Department is useful. But when the other party refuses to negotiate you are left with two choices, put up with whatever it is that they are doing or go and kill them. That’s it. That is unless you have discovered a means of arguing a bullet out of killing you, and if you have, I would love to hear about it.

    It is a bitter lesson to have to learn, but today Ukraine has been taught that lesson. The agreements made in the past have no bearing on today. This is because character is not a constant. While it is true that the agreement had the weight of truth behind it when it was initialized, today there are cowards in D.C. who quake with fear at the very thought of confronting a militarized Russia. Had these people been in power during the Cold War, it would have ended very differently because of their weakness and cowardice.

    Our emasculated President talks tough behind the Secret Service, but get him alone and he folds like a cheap suit. NATO had better pay attention. If the Ukraine cannot count on America to live up to our agreements, how long do they think they can last against the Russian bear all alone? How long can the Baltic states wait for help to come if Russia invades and re-takes them? Russia is a threat, of that there can now be now doubt. Weakness only invites aggression and the world is licking it’s chops as it contemplates the United States. There is a sick man in the West right now, and we are that sick man.

    With our military still destined to drop to pre WWII levels, increasing threats across the globe, and aggressive nations feeling their oats, how long will it be until our weakness leads to something ugly? Only time will tell, but remember, you voted for it. A people get the government that they deserve, and we deserve to be led by cowards. Think about that the next time you go to pull a voting lever.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      I had forgotten this when i did this post. We apparently did not get last century’s memo, and Europe should be quaking in their boots.
      From the National Review: The Daily Mail had the report back in March:

      As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea. In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds. After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.


  3. the unit Says:

    I read somewhere today the Obama’s are squatters in the White House.
    I hope they still using these…
    “William Crook, one of the Lincoln’s bodyguards, described the property: ‘The White House and it’s surroundings during wartime had much the appearance of a Southern plantation — straggling and easy- going. On the east side of the house . . . was a row of outhouses…’.”
    Now the situation room!


    • bunkerville Says:

      Sounds like what he turned it into!


  4. Steve Dennis Says:

    Obama condemns Putin’s actions but it is his policy which made all of this possible, just like what we are seeing in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq and yet he gets a free pass everywhere but on the blogs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Very true. I still puzzle on his remark about not having a plan. Not putting the cart before the horse. He had to know this would cause an uproar. Then he continues with his fund raising. Hard to believe it was a mistake,


  5. Petermc3 Says:

    Obama under the mantle of progressive has managed to dissassemble the respect and integrity of and loyalty to the US which was built upon the threat of force and the paying of tribute (foreign aid). If the damage done can ever be repaired, and that’s highly debatable, it cannot and will not be done during ours or our children’s lifetimes. There is no one on either side of the political spectrum with the big boy pants willing to put aside ideology and self interest in order to protect and elevate and ultimately save this country. The focus of most if not all politicians will be on the bloc of 30 million latinos ( I refrain from using Hispanic since it a made up government created category to separate them from and polarize them against Caucasians), soon to be part of the legal voting public. In the not too distant future on coffee tables around the world will sit the book titled “The Decline and Fall of The American Empire.” That is assuming the caliphate will allow books to be printed. Allahu Akbar!

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      You said it as well as anyone could. We can keep blogging and commenting as long as we can. The Media will soon grow dark, or merely a propaganda machine entirely.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: