Posted by Tina
Those who are watching events unfold in Ukraine will want to read an article by Richard W. Rahn published in The Washington Times and posted at IGEG. It turns out an agreement we made with Russia and the United Kingdom back in 1994 limits the manner in which we can respond to Russia’s incursion into Ukrainian territory even though Russia is in breach of its agreement:
On Dec. 5, 1994, the presidents of Ukraine (Leonid Kuchma), Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and the United States (Bill Clinton), and the prime minister of the United Kingdom (John Major) signed three memorandums to provide security assurances to Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to relinquish its nuclear weapons.
The memorandums read, in part: Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States “reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty.”
Russia now stands in clear violation of the agreement. Other than going to the United Nations (which the Russians just vetoed), no enforcement mechanism was created for Ukraine’s protection. Will the President meet Putin’s aggression and scorn with strength?
The United States and the United Kingdom have no military obligation to protect Ukraine, but having signed the 1994 agreement, they appear to be obligated to take other actions to try to enforce Ukraine’s borders and independence — which, in effect, means economic actions that will hurt Russia. When a country engages in economic sanctions or other forms of economic warfare, it must be sure that it will do more damage to its enemy than itself.
Putin and his ministers appear to be amused by the President’s sanctions. And why wouldn’t he? The card he holds for now is oil and gas, a commodity that European nations rely on heavily.
The way things are shaping up it looks like cyber warfare and economic warfare are the new fronts on which we will be taking both defensive and offensive actions when needed. America has an opportunity to become the alternate producer/exporter of coal, oil and natural gas for the EU, which now depends so heavily on Russian import. Taking up this challenge would mean more jobs for Americans while at the same time taking that impressive card from Putin’s hand.
The President is under pressure from radical environmental elements to curb production of these commodities. Will defense of our nation and free nations in the EU take precedence over green concerns?
PJ Media’s Michael Ledeen is willing to educate about how this move by Putin play’s in the wider anti-west picture…for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Tina, I am afraid we have a “see no, hear no” Administration with a “speak eloquent” but unhesitating misinform and deceive.
So Mr Ledeen’s words and thoughts will be wasted.
If we needed any further evidence that the Obama administration is way off track on foreign policy it would be surprising but still I was surprised by John Kerry’s repudiation of the Monroe Doctrine:
Read about the Monroe Doctrine here. The part that is of interest to Russian posturing:
Weakness in the WH has grave consequences.
Obama has NEVER dealt with domestic opposition using strength of ideas or strength of action. Why are we surprised that he is not using them in his foreign policy? What he should be learning from this is that the “Saul Alinsky tactics” he has used against his domestic political opponents does not work in foreign policy. And, what he will soon be learning is the American people are too smart to be fooled by these tactics indefinitely.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Abraham Lincoln