Obama's rendered fabric- Is it America?
(image by V Kontake) DMCA
President Obama's Executive Order
dated March 6, 2014 is very clear. Any person or organization that threatens
the territorial integrity of Ukraine, or questions the legitimacy of the
governing junta in Kiev, constitutes a threat to U.S. national security and
foreign policy and will be placed under sanctions.
The UN also came to a
similarly clear position. It passed a
resolution that "affirms commitment to the
sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine
within its internationally recognized borders."
Where this becomes a problem is that, according
to a statement from UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, Ukraine is missing
Experts operating under
the aegis of the UN Security Council came to the following conclusion about
Ukraine's borders: Within the framework of international law ,
it turns out that, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has not been
properly registered as a state, according to the UN demarcation of its borders.
According to the accepted contractual framework of the Russian Commonwealth, or
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the country remains on the limits of
the administrative boundaries of the USSR, over which the UN has no legal
jurisdiction. The EU currently
backs this position. The only established borders are on the European side.
Is the U.S. going to
sanction Ban ki-Moon? Will they drone the UN?
When the USSR broke up and
Ukraine was preparing to declare its independence, Russia set the terms for
that independence based on Ukraine's membership within the CIS Treaty:
"On the whole, Yeltsin has been quite careful to avoid making statements
which could evoke negative reaction in Kiev, but it is quite obvious that he
has not welcomed Ukraine's independence. Yeltsin has been quoted as saying
that, "Russia reserves the right to review the borders with those
republics that declared themselves independent." [See " Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet in
Russian-Ukrainian Relations Discussion,"
Paper 95-11, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University .
Also, Roman Solchanyk, "Ukraine: A Year of Transition," RFE-RL Research
Report, Vol. 1, No. 7 (February 14, 1992), p. 3.]
At the time, Russia's treaty rights to
review the borders of Ukraine applied to areas that were largely populated by
ethnic Russians, including Crimea, Donbass, and northern Kazakhstan. In
addition, Russia claimed the right to protect its diaspora population no matter
where they were located in the world. [See Roman
Solchanyk, "Crimea: Between Ukraine and Russia," in Maria Drohobycky,
ed., Crimea: Dynamics, Challenges, and
Prospects (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
1995), pp. 6-7.]
The CIS Treaty language reads as follows: "The high contracting parties recognize and respect one another's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the commonwealth." This made Russia's recognition of Ukraine's borders conditional upon Ukraine's full membership in the CIS . Promulgated in 1991, it was the best guarantee of independence that Ukraine has received from Russia.
Following this, the borders were further cemented by the 1997 Friendship Treaty. Fixed borders are a required standard for Ukraine's recognition by the international community and for any consideration of NATO membership. According to Dale B. Stewart, meeting this standard meant that all questions relating to the establishment of borders needed to first be completely resolved. [See his "The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty and the Search for Regional Stability in Eastern Europe," December, 1997.]
Articles 2 and 3 of the Friendship Treaty were the most important for establishing fixed borders between Ukraine and Russia. Lately, however, Article 2 has become a bit of a problem. It reads: "The High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter and obligations under the Final Act of the Council for Security and Collaboration in Europe, shall respect each other's territorial integrity, and confirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them.
The process of establishing international borders
starts with the treaties that bind the countries involved to their mutual
recognition. In the case of Ukraine and Russia, those treaties include the
original CIS Treaty and the Friendship Treaty.
Creation of the borders begins with the
surveying and mathematical work needed to establish approximate locations. The
next step is demarcation, which determines the locations of border markers and
crossings. To be recognized internationally, the borders need to be registered
and demarcated at the UN in accordance with internationally
accepted standards and procedures. Lastly, the
borders must be delineated--specified
in the way you would see them on a map.
With respect to Ukraine's borders, Wikipedia puts it this way: "Ukraine borders with seven countries: Poland , Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Russia , and Belarus. The total stretch of the Ukrainian border
consists of 6,992.98 km (4,345.24 mi). In reality Ukraine does not
have real established and ratified borders with Russia, Belarus, and
Moldova (republics of the former Soviet Union ). The
borders with other countries were "inherited" from the Soviet border
patrol service, which was recreated [as the Ukrainian border patrol service]
after the fall of the Soviet Union."
The ambiguity inherent in Ukraine's borders can be illustrated by its border agreement with Belarus, signed on May 13, 1997.
In its section on International Disputes, the CIA World Factbook states that, as of 2014, Russia's 1997 boundary delimitation treaty with Belarus "remains unratified, due to unresolved financial claims [that have stalled] demarcation and [reduced] border security; [at the same time], the delimitation of the land
boundary with Russia is complete [and] ppreparations for demarcation [are] underway."
twenty years of negligence in establishing and demarcating borders, Belarus is still disputing its boundary with Russia and the issue remains a subject of negotiation.
The CIA factbook further notes that "the dispute over the boundary
between Russia and Ukraine through the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov remains
unresolved, despite a December 2003 framework agreement and ongoing
To this day, Ukraine, like Belarus, has not finished the basic delimiting, demarcation, and registration process needed to establish borders that are internationally recognized. This limits opportunities for international cooperation, even for beneficial purposes such as anti-narcotic patrols and anti-smuggling operations.
Ukraine is also currently withdrawing from the original CIS Treaty with Russia, which set the terms of the borders it could establish. Yeltsin's view of the CIS document was that "Russia guarantees the preservation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and the defense of its borders"within the framework of the CIS."
The second and more important borders treaty, the Friendship Treaty signed in 1997, is renewed every 10 years. But, if the current political climate persists, it is difficult to imagine that Kiev will want to renew the treaty. After all, acording to former Ukrainian president Yulia Tymoshenko, "It doesn't matter who wins the [next] presidential election. We all hate Russia. We all win!"
Why Would Ukraine Purposely Not Define Its borders?
Three years before the Friendship Treaty was ratified, a lot of political white papers were written on possible outcomes. Most were not favorable to Russia. Across the board, there was general agreement that Russia would be unwilling to invade Ukraine because of the costs of such an action and the economic drain of maintaining an occupation there. At the time, Russia was in fact providing natural gas and financial credit to the struggling nation. Most of the papers dismissing a Russian threat were written by, or for, the same governments that materially supported the 2014 Maidan revolution. It's a pity those people don't seem to read.
In 1994, one such paper actually foresaw a scenario in which Ukraine would deliberately make Russia belligerent enough to attack Ukraine. This scenario is strikingly predictive of what we are seeing in 2014 as a result of Euro-Maidan.
"Although the possibility of war is not as far-fetched as one would like it to be, it would not work to Ukraine's disadvantage. Indeed, the emergence of a genuinely hostile Russia would translate into Ukraine's rapid integration into European economic and security structures and its concomitant transformation into a client state of the United States. As an East European version of South Korea, Ukraine would become the recipient of large-scale Western--in particular, American--military and economic assistance that would guarantee its stability, if not its prosperity.... Russia's aggressiveness, therefore, could be Ukraine's salvation . " [See Alexander J. Motyl, "Will Ukraine Survive 1994?" in the Harriman Institute Forum, Vol. 7, No. 5 (January 1994), p. 4.]
The current situation in Ukraine has in fact been building up over 20 years, with the stripping of the wealth of the country and the promotion of Ultra Nationalist ideology. The south-east region of Ukraine has been kept its poorest, though it is the country's industrial heartland and its large ethnic Russian population effectively supports the whole of Ukraine. The scenario posed in the 1994 white paper is now playing out before our very eyes. The one great value Ultra Nationalist Ukraine has to the U.S. and the EU is its rabid hatred
of Russia, and the damage the junta will try to cause it.
For 70 years the prospect of a Nazi Ukraine has existed in the hearts and minds of one percent of a population that now numbers 45 million people. Creating such a state has been the dream of a hopeful Russophobic government in exile with members both in the US and Canada
Yesterday, the only viable politician from the south-east of Ukraine was beaten half to death by Pravy Sektor militants while leaving an interview at a news station. Today, Maidan loyalists have chanted "to the ovens" and "knives to the Moskal" while throwing flour and eggs at referendum protesters to make the batter for the oven and the point of what kind of treatment they can expect.
In real terms, the cost of this conflict to Americans is growing exponentially day by day. I will be blunt. Your dollars are fueling the ovens the Ultra Nationalists want to throw normal people into. As I write this, the order has been given, and tanks and artillery will be close by soon. The hand of America is on the switch that will soon turn a genocide loose.
In funding these developments, the U.S. has bought into the notion of protecting the territorial integrity of a country without recognized borders. In doing so, it is supporting a Nazi state that has never existed here before. As a result, American citizens will now have to bear the cost of re-building the entire country from scratch through their tax dollars. Here is a rundown of some of the things your tax dollars will pay for:
1 | 2 | 3