The corporate press is inundated these days with D.C. uniparty members disseminating disinformation about the ongoing Russia and Ukraine spat, with many claiming the U.S. is somehow obligated to defend Ukraine’s borders, citing an old nuclear agreement.
Follow all of Jordan Schachtel’s writings at The Dossier.
The talking point has been repeated ad nauseum on TV and in every other media format, with countless self-proclaimed “foreign policy experts” claiming that the U.S. is committed to Kiev’s defense. The most repeated narrative claims that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons arsenal, the United States agreed to and is now compelled to defend the country from any hostile action.
Nothing of the sort is in the text of the document.
Let’s go back in history to the end of the Cold War.
In 1994, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed off on separate individual agreements to unilaterally disarm and send their nuclear arsenals to Russia. In exchange, the leaders of Russia, the U.K., and the United States agreed to help bolster the sovereignty of these post-USSR states in addition to committing to “security assurances.” The agreement was perceived as a strategic coup for Russia. That remains the case today. Both Clinton and U.K. PM John Major helped facilitate the agreement with the intent to appease Moscow, and it was done so as part of an attempt to reset relations with the old Great Power rival.
First and foremost, the agreement is not a treaty, so it has no real binding power in America. On the U.S. side, it was signed by one man, the president at the time, Bill Clinton. Because it was not ratified by the U.S. Senate as a treaty, historical precedent tells us that in 2021 it is essentially meaningless.
Second, security assurances are not security guarantees. A security assurance is the equivalent of telling someone you have their back. A security guarantee is closer to the framework of NATO, which was additionally legitimized through the Senate ratification process.
Ukraine unilaterally disarmed, giving up its most powerful negotiating tool, and the nation got a dead fish handshake agreement from the United States in exchange for doing so.
My personal opinion, regardless of the merits of the agreement, is that the U.S. has no business defending Ukraine’s borders. What happens between Russia and Ukraine is entirely inconsequential to American interests.
Far from the holy Hollywood projection of Ukraine as a “frontline of democracy,” Ukrainian politicians are notoriously two-faced, taking bribes from every geopolitical direction, and the nation is inundated with massive corruption along with major political power being wielded by organized criminal gangs.
Russia, on the other hand, has very similar issues to their Ukraine neighbor. Russia is a mafia state where individual rights and dissent are unheard of. The masters of propaganda, Moscow presents itself as orthodox Christians to their fans on the right, and compliant globalists to the Davos crowd. Yet Russia is far from a real threat to the U.S. and Chinese global superpower competition. In fact, several NATO allies maintain economies that are in a much stronger position than that of Russia’s. If NATO members are that worried about Russia, they can spend a little more money on their own defense and not rely on the U.S. taxpayer for their military safety net.
The issues between Russia and Ukraine warrant zero U.S. involvement. Let the two nations sort it out. Moreover, our current regime in the Biden Administration does not have the moral authority to tell any country what to do. Far from a leader of the free world, our country does not currently resemble anything have to do with Western principles.
If in fact, the worst case scenario happened, and Russia were to annex more of Ukraine, the only difference we’d notice is the new flags on the government buildings.
Don’t let the politicians and pundits fool you. The U.S. has no obligation or mandate to protect Ukraine.