Tom Fitton: Don’t Forget Biden’s Connections to Ukraine

A good reminder:

Fitton (who I might add apparently skips leg day) points out that the Democrats F R E A K E D O U T over Trump asking questions about the Bidens’ dealings in Ukraine, so much so that they impeached him over it.

Given the degree to which the entire US ruling class has risen up in unison and displayed an unwavering and unequivocal determination to Defend The Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, you have to wonder how many of them also have questionable “business” and financial dealings in the country.

The only official explanation out there for why the US ruling class is so ferociously defensive of Ukraine is that although Ukraine is not a NATO member, we signed a “memorandum” back in 1994 promising to assist them if ever they were invaded. In return, Ukraine agreed to turn over its Soviet Era nuclear stockpile to the Russians in the name of non-proliferation:

Ukraine as an independent state was born from the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Its independence came with a complicated Cold War inheritance: the world’s third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Ukraine was one of the three non-Russian former Soviet states, including Belarus and Kazakhstan, that emerged from the Soviet collapse with nuclear weapons on its territory.

The U.S., in a burst of diplomatic energy and at a time of unmatched global influence, worked to prevent the unprecedented collapse of a nuclear superpower from leading to history’s largest proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This diplomatic activity manifested in security assurances for Ukraine embedded in what has become known as the Budapest Memorandum. With the entrance of Ukraine into the international order as a non-nuclear state, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. pledged to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

Ukraine, in turn, gave up the nuclear weapons within its borders, sending them to Russia for dismantling.

The memo reaffirmed their obligation to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” The signatories also reaffirmed their commitment to “seek immediate” U.N. Security Council action “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.” These assurances upheld obligations contained in the U.N. charter and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.

The memorandum, signed in 1994, is not legally binding.

It’s interesting that we have heard nothing about the UN Security Council throughout all of this, isn’t it?

At any rate, are we really to believe this non-legally binding 1994 “Memorandum” (that’s all it is: it’s not a treaty) is the reason our ruling class has pushed us to the brink of war with a nuclear-armed nation over the Territorial Integrity™ of Ukraine?

Leave a Reply