Posts Tagged ‘treaty’

U.S. GUARANTEED Ukraine’s Borders: It Is Simply STUNNING How Obama Has Played The Part Of WWII Patsy Neville Chamberlain

March 5, 2014

You’ve got to love the symbolism.  Russian media frequently shows Vladimir Putin as a bare-chested martial artist who goes hunting.  And then they show Barack Obama as a scrawny wuss who wears mom pants while riding a bicycle with a geeky helmet on his dumbo-eared head.  Will the real man please stand up?  And Obama is either having a fundraising party or going on vacation.  But it certainly aint him.

Do you want to know what is happening right now?  We’re replaying World War II all over again – only in this new incarnation, it is Neville Chamberlain who is the hero by allowing Hitler to do whatever he wants under the belief that if you allow evil to rule, evil will eventually stop on its own (and as everyone who isn’t a fool knows, it won’t).

I have in numerous articles compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  And Obama has now BECOME Neville Chamberlain: a petty tyrant domestically who proved himself to be a pathological coward in every way that counted.

Did you know that Ukraine had a TREATY that the United States under Bill Clinton signed swearing to PROTECT Ukraine and specifically Crimea FROM RUSSIA???  Do you have any idea what the CONSEQUENCES are of just letting Russia make the America that put its credibility and prestige on the line look like a bunch of weak and ineffectual cowards???

As weak, as pathetic, as godawful as I thought Obama has been, even I didn’t begin to grasp just how truly and stunningly demon-possessed-naively-incompetent Barack Obama and his administration is.

As we speak, Sarah Palin’s prediction is coming about with biblical accuracy:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Realize that Palin was saying this in the aftermath of Putin’s seizure of two republics from the sovereign nation of Georgia with less than three months remaining in George W. Bush’s presidency.  Putin took advantage of the fact that Democrats and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had demonized Bush as some kind of vicious warmonger, such that Bush could do nothing.  It was the end of eight years in which Democrats had demonized Bush as a monster who had started two wars.  Had Bush confronted Putin strongly over Georgia, Obama and Democrats would have been saying, “You see?  There he goes again starting wars!”  It was going to be up to Democrats what kind of response America gave.  And they promised to be completely different from Bush’s aggression.

You tell ME what Democrats – and particularly Obama – would have said if Bush had sent troops to the Ukraine.  Anybody who tries to argue that Bush didn’t go into Ukraine so Obama shouldn’t have to is a dishonest idiot.  Because you shouldn’t blame Bush for not doing something you damn well know you would have demonized him for doing had he done it.

Bush started out strong and ended up weak in his foreign policy because Democrats had demonized him every single time he tried to stand up for America.  Obama started out weak and has just gotten weaker and weaker and weaker until America under his failed policies no longer matters in our enemies’ calculations.

Most Republicans would support Obama if he offered a strong response against Russia.  Democrats NEVER support a Republican president for ANY strong response ANYWHERE.  And that is a fact.

And the Democrat response, as history records, was pathetic.  Obama radiated weakness, as Sarah Palin pointed out.  Putin STILL has those republics in Georgia that he invaded and he has never given them back and never will.  And Obama literally said his policy was weakness and not to do a damn thing which told Putin WHAT about invading Ukraine???

Putin has been planning this seizure of Crimea.  Do you know what was holding him back?  It wasn’t fear of America under Obama’s gutless cowardly leadership.  Putin fears Obama the way a bear fears a cotton-tail bunny.  The only thing that made Putin hesitate to seize Crimea from Ukraine was the Olympic Games.  And with Sochi over with, Putin moved right in.  Rest assured, whatever “unrest” happened in Ukraine happened because of Russian agitation according to Putin’s plan.  And that unrest gave Putin all the pretext he felt he needed to do whatever he wanted while Obama sat there like a weak, skinny little punk who was too weak and too afraid to do anything and knew he was too weak and too afraid to do anything.

Sarah Palin understood the essence of Obama was an empty suit who could give speeches and sign executive orders but had no integrity and no leadership.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and see WHAT Ukraine gave up to HAVE that treaty and what America’s betrayal – specifically Barack Obama’s betrayal of America – will now cost Ukraine:

Ukraine to disarm, Clinton says CLINTON IN EUROPE
January 11, 1994|By Carl M. Cannon

BRUSSELS, Belgium — President Clinton, hailing “a hopeful and historic breakthrough,” announced yesterday an agreement that would finally remove all nuclear weapons from Ukraine — the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

The bulk of that arsenal is pointed at the United States from the time when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but it is fear of Moscow that has lately made Ukrainians anxious about giving up the weapons as agreed to under earlier treaties.

The agreement announced yesterday contains guarantees that neither Russia or the United States would launch a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Ukraine will also get hundreds of millions of dollars to help dismantle the nuclear arsenal and considerable assistance in advancing its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Many details about the nuclear removal appeared to remain unsettled yesterday, but a clearly delighted Mr. Clinton said that he would stop off at the Ukrainian capital of Kiev tomorrow to thank Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk personally before going to Moscow.

Details had to be worked out, and here was one of the big details finalized in 1997:

KIEV, Ukraine — Ending one of history’s oldest fraternal feuds, Russia and Ukraine signed away a millennium of rivalry and resentment Saturday with a friendship treaty destined to shape a new era of relations between Europe’s biggest states.

With his signature on the accord pledging respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin gave up Moscow’s long-running claims on Crimea. An accompanying agreement resolved years of dispute over who will inherit the Soviet-era Black Sea Fleet.

The opening la-de-da words of that one reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s epically stupid “reset” (well, actually “overcharge”) button with Russia as she and Obama affirmed that absolute, historic GUTLESSNESS was the way to power, prestige and wealth.

Let’s revisit an event in 2008, when Russia was building a dam that called into question Ukraine’s sovereignty.  It mentions the specifics of the treaty that Clinton had committed the United States to:

On Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. ambassador to Kiev, John E. Herbst, told journalists this week that the U.S. supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And so yes, Russia didn’t just attack Ukraine.  Russia attacked the United States of America:

Ukraine’s territorial integrity guaranteed under 1994 deal
AFP
March 3, 2014 10:06 AM

Moscow (AFP) – Former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko claimed on Monday that by “occupying” Crimea, Russia had not only declared war on Ukraine but also on Britain and the United States.

That is because on December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia along with Britain and the United States signed an agreement in which the three powers guaranteed the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.

The Black Sea peninsula is currently under de-facto occupation by pro-Kremlin troops, a situation which has been embraced by the local Russian speaking population fearing Kiev’s new authorities.

However, under the terms of the 1994 so-called Budapest memorandum the three major powers affirmed their commitment to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. It was signed three years after Ukraine became an independent state.

Russia, the US and Britain also agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons would ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

In the memorandum, they also agreed to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Kiev should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

In breaking America’s word to Ukraine, Barack Obama may just as well have issued an official decree in a speech from the Oval Office that he was abrogating all treaties and that the United States could and would break any and all treaty agreements and promises at any time if they inconvenienced Obama in any way, shape or form.

Think about it.  Because every single nation on earth that has ever depended on any agreement with the United States is sure thinking about it.

I remember the Democrats and Obama mocking the forty nation “coalition of the willing” that George W. Bush assembled when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq beginning in 2001.  Do you know how many nations Barack Obama – the arrogant Chump-in-Chief – has been able to muster lately?

Try a big fat ZERO.

When Obama issued his infamous “red line” warning to Syria, how many allies were willing to go with him?  ZERO.

As Obama announced his policy of sanctions against Russia in the aftermath of this new Hitler annexing Poland issue, how many allies could Obama muster just for a miserable sanction???  ZERO.  Not even Britain will go along with the Sissy-in-Chief.  And it is DEMOCRATS who are resisting Obama’s pathetically weak response.

Think of it, because it is astonishing: the man who mocked Bush’s coalition has pissed away every friend we have and all the clout we had such that he doesn’t have even ONE ally on earth.

This is because Barack Obama has spent the past five years abandoning every single friend and emboldening every single foe.

Obama has weakened America on every imaginable level: we are weaker economically under his failed leadership, with the all-important measure of labor participation (the number of working-age adults who have a damn JOB) at a 37-year low.  Obama has weakened America militarily, having after spending YEARS undermining our military just called to make it weaker than at any time since before World War II just when America should have been showing STRENGTH instead.  And Obama has weakened us diplomatically by betraying our friends and emboldening our enemies across the world.

Do you know who also refused to take our side against Russia?  China.  Do you know why?  Because China has hunger for territorial seizure, too.  And they want to get some of what Russia just got.  You can count on China doing what Russia just did.

We’re going to learn the answer to the question, “What if Hitler and Stalin ruled the world and America was too weak and too isolated to do anything about it.”  Because that’s what’s happening now thanks to false messiah Obama.

The United States will literally have to fight a World War III at unimaginable cost to get back the credibility and prestige that Barack Obama foolishly and frankly insanely pissed away.  And if we don’t demonstrate a powerful willingness to fight World War III, we will instead decline and decline and decline some more as the American standard of life that DEPENDED upon U.S. power dwindles into poverty.

THAT is your future because you were stupid enough and depraved enough to elect and then incredibly RE-elect Barack Hussein Obama.  And one day you’ll burn in hell for it along with all your other sins against God.

This is the thing about liberals.  Liberals are people who are utterly without genuine principle.  Which means they will make a deal, promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, and so on, but the moment it is politically expedient for them to abandon their promise, you can count on them to make themselves liars and hypocrites.  It is simply who they are.  Period.  End of story.

Advertisements

New York Times’ Title Says It All: ‘Obama’s economic view is rejected on world stage’

November 13, 2010

When the New York Times runs a front page story detailing that the entire world rejects a Democrat president’s economic “solutions,” you can pretty much know for certain that those “solutions” must truly, truly suck.

But that is exactly what happened yesterday:

Here’s the main page of The New York Times:

And here is the New York Times story, via the San Jose Mercury News:

Obama’s economic view is rejected on world stage
By Sewell Chan, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Posted: 11/11/2010

SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama’s hopes of emerging from his Asia trip with the twin victories of a free-trade agreement with South Korea and a unified approach to spurring global economic growth ran into resistance on all fronts Thursday, putting Obama at odds with his key allies and largest trading partners.

The most concrete trophy expected to emerge from the trip eluded his grasp: a long-delayed free trade agreement with South Korea, first negotiated by the Bush administration and then reopened by Obama, to have greater protections for U.S. workers.

And as officials frenetically tried to paper over differences among the Group of 20 members with a vaguely worded communique to be issued today, there was no way to avoid discussion of the fundamental differences of economic strategy. After five largely harmonious meetings in the past two years to deal with the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, major disputes broke out between Washington and China, Britain, Germany and Brazil.

Each rejected core elements of Obama’s strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. Several major nations continued to accuse the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar last week in an effort to put the costs of America’s competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home.

The result was that Obama repeatedly found himself on the defensive. He and the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, had vowed to complete the trade pact by the time they met here; while Obama insisted that it would be resolved “in a matter of weeks,” without the pressure of a summit meeting, it was unclear how the hurdles on nontariff barriers to U.S. cars and beef would be resolved.

Obama’s meeting with China’s president, Hu Jintao, appeared to do little to break down Chinese resistance to accepting even nonbinding numerical targets for limiting China’s trade surplus. While Lael Brainard, the undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, said that the United States and China “have gotten to a good place” on rebalancing their trade, Chinese officials later archly reminded the Americans that as the issuers of the dollar, the main global reserve currency, they should consider the interests of the “global economy” as well as their own “national circumstances.”

If you wanted a treaty with South Korea, you are missing Bush right about now.  Like the overwhelming majority of Ohio voters who now recognize their mistake in having voted for Obama in 2008.

Remember the European Union president saying the Obama stimulus was “a way to hell”?  From the New York Times:

PARIS — The European Union’s crisis of leadership during the economic downturn was thrown into sharp relief on Wednesday, as the current president of the 27-nation bloc labeled President Obama’s emergency stimulus package “a way to hell” that will “undermine the stability of the global financial market.”

And the last two years proves he was right.  And Obama very wrong.

The facts now prove that the countries that refused to enact massive Obama-style stimulus programs have recovered far faster with far more job growth than the U.S.

China warned that the Obama administration’s reckless monetary policies could trigger a global economic collapse.  Even as China – you know, the country that now owns us – just downgraded U.S. credit.

And now the G-20 nations are agreeing with the American people in telling Obama to go to hell.