37

In this question, I do not raise questions about the conflicts themselves. The question is different - how is the fact that the United States recognizes these problems as its own justified from a legal point of view?

Quote from today's executive order:

<...> the Russian Federation’s purported recognition of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) regions of Ukraine contradicts Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements and further threatens the peace, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Why can't some South Africa just as well recognize the conflict between China and Taiwan as its own?

0

8 Answers 8

111

The 1994 Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is an agreement between Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the UK, and the US that requires each country to treat Ukraine as an independent nation, to respect the borders of Ukraine, to refrain from economic coercion on Ukraine, and to provide assistance to Ukraine should any party threaten Ukraine.

In exchange, Ukraine surrendered its stockpile of nuclear weapons to Russia. Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power at the time of the agreement. (Russia however had all the launch codes.)

7
  • 4
    (-1) This treaty gets invoked all the time when it comes to Ukraine but its importance is frequently overstated. Besides, the language of the treaty itself is pretty weak.
    – Relaxed
    Feb 22 at 22:52
  • 2
    @Relaxed I'm not sure the weak language is meaningful to this answer.If the answer were about the US being legally prescribed to perform certain actions, the weakness would undercut that. Even merely being party to a treaty that was violated would be a legal cause to be party to the violation of the treaty...
    – bharring
    May 5 at 18:39
  • 1
    @bharring Sure and I didn't say it was. The fact remains that the importance of this treaty is vastly overstated. It's simply not plausible that the US considers the Russian attack on Ukraine a matter of national security because it is a party to this agreement. As far as I know, it's not even trying to claim that or invoking it in any way.
    – Relaxed
    May 5 at 18:48
  • @Relaxed I find it odd that you disagree so much to the one answer that provided a non-opinionated answer. Even your own answer is nothing more than opinion... I'm not saying this is necessarily the best or truest reason, but at least David provided an actual non-opinion reason.
    – CGCampbell
    Jun 7 at 11:19
  • @RelaxedRelax of course the treaty isn't the reason the US got involved. The question asks what -legal justification- the US might have. The reasons would be a much longer discussion, as there are many.
    – bharring
    Jun 7 at 15:42
55

Maybe because an international order where individual parties can revoke previous treaties and behave as bullies is generally bad for peace and security

There are generic reasons why world powers might oppose one state bullying another especially if that violates previous treaties even if the actions involved don't immediately affect the major power.

Ukraine is a long way away from the USA and, even if Russia completely took over the country there is little direct change in the threat level to the USA. So it is certainly possible to argue that they should not care about any Russian threats the Ukraine. Though there are explicit treaties in this specific case to which the USA is a party (as the previous answer shows).

Even if an explicit breaking of a treaty were not involved the USA might still see good reasons to care about this specific problem. The world's experience with such acts over history is not entirely comfortable. One, disturbing, analogy is with how the western powers in the 1930s treated Germany's claim on the Czech Sudetenland region. Germany claimed–as Russia claims now–that the region was a longstanding part of Germany and its population was oppressed. The big powers in western Europe didn't see how this materially affected their direct security and the British PM even dismissed Czech complaints as coming from "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing". They agreed a deal to prevent a possible war as they thought this would satisfy the German complaint. It didn't work and, if anything, encouraged the Germans to push for further concessions that ultimately led to a huge war that engulfed the world.

The analogy is imperfect as hardly anyone thinks that Russia has the same ambitions as Nazi Germany. But they do have an ambition–clearly stated–to expand their sphere of influence to create a buffer against supposed NATO aggression. Ukraine is not a NATO member and is unlikely to become one, but plenty of Russia's other neighbours are. So–excepting the denuclearisation treaty–there is no immediate obligation to intervene in the Ukraine-Russia dispute.

But acquiescing in Russian bullying of Ukraine might send a signal that the USA doesn't care what happens in Europe which would undermine the USA's NATO obligations to many other neighbours of Russia. Russia might see this as a green light to start putting pressure on, for example, the Baltic states. This could be quite a risk to the whole of NATO and. therefore, the USA.

Even if the NATO issue didn't exist, generally upholding international law arguably makes for a safer world. Allowing strong countries to bully others despite the international rules undermines the rules and makes for a less stable word. even if the immediate breach of the rules has little impact on the USA's immediate security, a ruleless world could easily spiral out of control and that might lead to future problems that do affect the USA's immediate interests.

So there is at least a plausible argument that major powers should worry about problems that are a long way away.

1
  • 2
    "Maybe because..." why maybe?
    – uhoh
    Feb 24 at 8:47
19

The argument is not a legal one. Generally speaking the US is and sees itself as the single overarching global superpower and seeks to maintain this role. This entails getting involved in the affairs of many countries around the world in a way that South Africa never tried. Keeping rivals in check and maintaining a global order that comports broadly with US interests are key to the “national security and foreign policy” of the US. This has been a stronger and more stable tenet of US foreign policy than a strict respect for international law.

Importantly, while the language is pretty strong (“unusual and extraordinary threat”), the US commitment is actually very limited (compared to the role the US plays in many places in the Middle East or East Asia for example). The current US administration made it very clear that it wouldn't consider direct military intervention and it didn't position US troops in Ukraine.

But ultimately there is nothing stopping any country from expressing a view on the conflict between Taiwan and China or even shunning one or the other, that's exactly how international law works, for the most part. In fact, many countries, including South Africa, were pressured to do just that by switching diplomatic relations from the ROC to the PRC. And a handful of tiny countries still retain diplomatic relations with Taiwan in defiance of the PRC, which at a more modest level is another way to get involved in the issue.

14

The Russian approach to its dispute with Ukraine very likely involves changing borders. Whether defining new borders to carve out the two puppet states from Ukraine, or extending Russia’s border to include Ukraine (and apparently Belarus, per Putin’s public musings).

Most of Europe is scared shitless that opening the Pandora’s box of changing borders will disrupt the peace that has held in Europe for the most part since WW2.

I use the phrase “scared shitless” to try to drive home some of the issues hidden by the polite phrase “Inviolability of Borders” in international agreements such as the Helsinki Accords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords, which predate the dissolution of the USSR, as well as more recent agreements. Many of which the USA, Russia, and Ukraine are party to, not to mention all of Europe and most of the countries in the world.

Why does the principle of “Inviolability of Borders“ matter?

Let’s talk about Europe:

In the 20th century there were two major conflicts, the two “world wars”, where issues of borders and the integrity of countries were major contributing factors. E.g. WW1: Alsace Lorraine. Austria Hungary. E.g. WW2: Danzig. The Sudetenland. Not to mention all of the minor conflicts between the big wars over the borders in the Balkans and Poland and the Baltic states.

For the most part Europe has been at peace since World War II, Yugoslavia being the biggest exception.

But look at how WW2 was resolved: breathtakingly large border changes in areas that were historically German and Polish, accompanied by what amounts to ethnic cleansing.

If the principle of inviolability of borders is set aside, then Pandora’s box is opened.

There are several small parties in modern Germany that advocate reclaiming the eastern territories surrendered after WW2. Territories now inside Polish and Russian borders. Although it may seem unlikely now, but if Germany takes a rightist/populist turn this will arise again.

Similarly there are parties in Poland that advocate reclaiming historically Polish areas now in Belarus and Russia. (Whether they would hope to gain these without surrendering the territory Poland picked up from Germany after WW2 I don’t know.)

There’s a big Hungarian minority within Romania.

Note that both Poland and Hungary are already on the path to rightist populism, away from liberal towards illiberal democracy.

If the principle of inviolability of borders is abandoned, all of these issues and more can, and probably will, be raised again.

And that’s just Europe. Africa is even more vulnerable to issues that will arise if borders are not sacred. Even South America: Bolivian access to the Pacific? Revisit the Chaco?

Please don’t take my statement and attempted explanation of the principle of inviolability of borders to indicate that I think this is a good thing. I don’t. I think the principle of inviolability of borders is a fragile thing on which to base our hopes for peace. We might hope that the European project, the EU, might render borders irrelevant there… but Africa’s borders derived from the European colonial era are an impediment to its development. Trouble is, unless African borders are rendered irrelevant in the way that we hope Schengen borders continue to be, it is hard to see how they can be rationalized without major conflict.

So most of the countries of the world pay nervous lip service to the principle of the inviolability of borders. And in the meantime have to tolerate oppression of minorities within a country’s borders.

The options seem to be

A) inviolability of borders - a tenuous peace - with human rights issues for minorities like the Kurds that don’t have their own borders

A’) evolution towards borders becoming irrelevant

B) between WW1 and WW2 the League of Nations tried to use plebiscites to allow disputed areas to determine which country they should belong to. WW2 seems to indicate this did not always work.

C) once borders are up for grabs, if self determination by the people of a region as in B) is not acceptable, there are far too many incompatible bases for determining where a border should be placed.

Eg Putin says that Ukraine is historically part of Greater Russia, since Kievan Rus. Maybe… but large parts of Ukraine spent more time under Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian and their own rule than they did under Moscow rule. Whose version of history wins?

D) failing any way of determining borders via principles of international law or human rights, it falls back to raw power politics. Whether economic or eventually military.

Which of course is the other lesson of the Russia / Ukraine dispute: If a country wants to preserve its independence, it helps to have nukes. It helps not to have given up your nukes.

And if that leads to more nuclear proliferation… well, I think it is in the interests of our survival as a species to prevent that conclusion.

===

So, why are the USA and Europe concerned about Russia “adjusting” its borders with Ukraine?

Because… if Russia adjusts its borders with Ukraine, it opens the doors to some future rightist version of Germany wanting Kaliningrad back from Russia, within the next century, the next time that Russia is down and Germany ascendant, if the European project fails.

Perhaps more likely: after mainland China recovers Taiwan, one possible next step with respect to recovering from China's Century of Humiliation would be to reverse some of the last of the Unequal Treaties - including the Treaty of Aigun (1858) that reversed the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689), that annexed the region between the Amur River and the Stanovoy Range to Russia.

So… if Russia ignores the "Principle of inviolability of Borders" and "adjusts" its borders with Ukraine, it opens the doors to

  1. Germany wanting Kaliningrad back from Russia
  2. China wanting Vladivostok, etc., back from Russia

Two of the three of the ice-free ports that Russia spent so many centuries trying to acquire - Sevastopol in Crimea being the third. Of course, with global warming Russia may not need these ports any more, if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free.

That’s just my attempt at a pithy summary. Probably would not happen exactly that way, but the post-WW2 generation fears that something like that will happen - whether in some future illiberal Europe, in Africa, in Latin America…

6
  • 2
    This is an interesting perspective. Essentially all these countries respect "invisible" borders partly out of fear of what would happen if no one did, and examples of changes in borders like following the world wars are definitely examples of how much we all should be scared shitless of conflict that reaches that level. The most troubling takeaway for me, though, is worrying that potentially only nuclear powers will (eventually) have the power to define borders and everyone smaller/weaker ... won't.
    – RoboBear
    Feb 24 at 6:43
  • 1
    "accompanied by what amounts to ethnic cleansing." <- Accompanied by ethnic cleansing, period. During the war - that is very well known: Jews, Roma, etc. After the war: Millions of ethnic-Germans were thrown out of their countries. And that has not been resolved yet. On your main point, I disagree that this is the reason. The would be a reason for European states possibly, not so much for the US.
    – einpoklum
    Feb 24 at 20:25
  • Fun observation: every so often I see a down vote for this post. At around the same time I see activity on a honey pot, trying to take over an account. In fact, I have never seen an attack on this particular honey pot that is not associated with a downvote on this post.
    – Krazy Glew
    May 16 at 4:07
  • Probably will soon.
    – Krazy Glew
    May 16 at 4:14
  • 1
    You are not the only one who thinks that, the speech by Kenya's UN envoy in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine says the same (and is well worth hearing): youtube.com/watch?v=jwDWxyLVBxk&t=2s
    – Ivana
    Jun 7 at 11:54
10

Another perspective is preventing a nuclear first strike. Specifically, preventing any country (in this case Russia) from achieving a strategic positioning of missiles that might give them an advantage in missile strike scenarios. Generally speaking, no one wants to strike first especially with nukes because they can't guarantee preventing their own retaliatory destruction.

There is a long history of both the US and Russia (and others) competing in an arms race for developing better first strike capability and missile interception capabilities. Some relevant historical points of note:

  • US withdraws from Nuclear IMF treaty with Russia - this was a ban on developing the kinds of missiles either side could use for first and secondary strikes against each other
  • The US is currently expanding its interception and strike capacity for nukes using ICBM tech that will replace the current "Minuteman" types
  • During the Cuban Missile Crisis Russia moved nukes to within strike distance of major US cities. Less well known is that, at the time, the US already had missile strike sites close to Russia inside of Turkey. In fact, according to the long time US ambassador to Soviet Russia Jack Matlock, the US had placed missile strike sites close to Russia inside of Turkey before this. When Russia agreed to remove its sites from Cuba, JFK compromised to remove the sites in Turkey - secretly. So from Russia's perspective, the US is and has been trying to maintain an advantageous nuclear strike position against Russia; Russia can either accept that or maneuver for advantage, such as by taking land to expand its borders and improving its defense and strike abilities.
  • According to multiple sources from a cursory Google search worldwarwings.com history.com sidmartinbio.org, the US dropped nukes on Japan after the Japanese effectively surrendered. The US wanted better surrender terms (like prosecuting the Japenese Emperor) and dropped the bomb - against military advice - in a show of force. Russia and the rest of the world probably haven't forgotten this, and it suggests the US might again use nukes in a show of force to achieve strategic aims.

Lastly, it's worth considering the words of one of the long term and (almost) last diplomat's to the Soviet Union James Matlock, regarding his testimony against expanding NATO:

But the reason that I testified, along with a number of other people — many of them had been influential in bringing the Cold War to the end. The reason I testified against expanding NATO expansion — against expanding NATO, in the beginning, in the late ’90s, was because we had — at the end of the Cold War, we had removed the Iron Curtain. We had created what we had aimed for: a Europe whole and free. And it was obvious, if you start piecemeal expanding NATO, you are going to — without including Russia — you are going to once again precipitate a buildup of arms and a competition, an armed competition, then. But there was no reason to do it at that time. Russia was not threatening any East European country. Actually, the Soviet Union in its last years was not, because Gorbachev had accepted the democratization of the East European countries. And actually, one of the last acts of the Soviet parliament was to recognize the freedom and independence of the three Baltic countries, so that we had a Europe whole and free. The task was to build a security architecture that would include them all. And the reason I testified against it was that I saw that a process that we started then, if continued, and if continued up to the borders of the Soviet Union — I mean, to the borders of Russia and included former parts of the Soviet Union that were recognized as part of the Soviet Union at that time, such as, most importantly, Ukraine and Georgia, that this would bring about a confrontation.

So, today, Russia wants to prevent more NATO expansion, keep Ukraine out of NATO, achieve a better strategic position regarding nuclear strikes and respond to the US's stated intentions basically preparing for nuclear war and maintaining a strike advantage. The inevitable outcome of this posturing is, of course, an arms race, where it's in Russia's obvious interest to minimize NATOs size and expand its borders.

This is not to say I agree with Russia's tactics or strategy, nor that I think the US is in the wrong. I think both countries are behaving "rationally" given the context. But the context is a history of the US and Russia posturing against each other following WWII. Russia has also absolutely has been aggressive too, so it's reasonable to believe they very much might invade the Ukraine, or intend to improve their missile readiness. If they don't plan to invade the Ukraine, why else would Russia move 100,000 troops to the Ukraine's border?

In summary - Russia has "been the US's problem" for decades already, and what's happening now is more of a natural consequence to long standing policy and strategic aims, as well as a response to Russia's obvious military buildup.

11
  • 6
    The issue of a nuclear first strike was rendered irrelevant as soon as all the major powers had long range ballistic missiles. There is no advantage having missiles close to your target since then.
    – matt_black
    Feb 22 at 23:43
  • 3
    This is only a nuclear strike issue in Russia's forced narrative. The US does not have nuke interception capability there and only has v limited amounts in eastern NATO countries for the purpose of deterring Iran. Feb 23 at 1:25
  • 2
    This answer contains a good amount of "whataboutery". Reeks of copy-and-paste.
    – RedSonja
    Feb 23 at 8:05
  • 3
    @robobear This is speculative nonsense (unless you can quote a reliable source). ICBM sites in eastern europe? No. Easy to intercept ICBMs? No.
    – matt_black
    Feb 24 at 9:09
  • 3
    "US dropped nukes on Japan after the Japanese effectively surrendered" - I only checked your second citation for that fact - it very clearly says otherwise. Given the extensive sources I've seen saying the exact opposite, could you provide reasoning for this claim?
    – bharring
    May 4 at 21:09
3

US manufactured this conflict in the first place !

Ukraine conflict: since 2008

Nazis in Soviet Ukraine went dormant after Hitler's death, only to rise with Joe Biden's support under US president Obama.

In February 2014, Nazi Maidan-coup in Ukraine overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, and replaced him with pro-US Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a Nazi supporter, and actor in the Ukrainian TV series "servant of the people". Ihor Kolomoysky funded the TV series. and Zelenskyy's campaign. He also funds Aidar, Azov, Dnepro-1 and Dnepro-2 battalions. He was also part of the new Nazi regime that the Obama administration installed in Ukraine. Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden was appointed as the director of an Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, and his direct superior was Ihor Kolomoysky.

On 23 February 2014, shortly after the Obama administration’s Maidan-coup, Russian president Vladimir Putin announced, "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia", and started amassing troops at Crimea border.

The more Liberal civilians did not want to live in Nazi oppression under US puppet Zelenskyy.

In March 16, 2014, Crimea region held a referendum on seceding from Ukraine. Choices were:

restoration of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and stay in Ukraine

reunification of Crimea with Russia

“Reports of the harassment and intimidation of activists and journalists by the de facto military forces(Ukraine nationalists) operating in Crimea are an extremely worrying development where human rights abuses are already rife,” according to John Dalhuisen, International’s Europe and Central Asia Director.

96.77% of the Crimean residents voted to join Russia. All Crimean residents were allowed to vote, regardless of whether they held Ukranian nationality. That is, even foreigners who resided in Crimea were allowed to vote, while Ukrainians who did not reside in Crimea were not even allowed to enter the poll booth.

On 18 March 2014, Russia took over Crimea. Soon after, a preliminary poll was released by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology, with data gathered in Donetsk from 8–16 April, where only 10.6% supported the current Nazi regime. While 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralization of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation.

In 11 May 2014, another two region held a referendum on seceding from Ukraine. The two referendums asked the question: "Do you support the declaration of state independence ?" and the Choices were Yes and No. Both Luhansk and Donetsk voted for separation from Ukraine, by 96% and 89%. Luhansk and Donetsk together is known as the Donbas region.

Ukraine nationalists started oppressing the pro-Independence population, and Ukraine battalions started shelling(bombing) the Donbas region.

In July 2014, Amnesty international publicized allegations of abduction and torture perpetrated by separatist(pro-Independence) armed groups and pro-Kyiv forces(Ukraine nationalists).

Soon, members of the Nazi Ukraine government including Oleg Lyashko, leader of the Ukrainian Radical Party and Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, started abduction and torture of separatists and former ministers.

On 8 September 2014, Amnesty international noted, “The failure to stop abuses and possible war crimes by volunteer battalions risks significantly aggravating tensions in the east of the country and undermining the proclaimed intentions of the new Ukrainian authorities to strengthen and uphold the rule of law more broadly.”

One of Ihor Kolomoysky's battalions, the Aidar battalion was disbanded after Amnesty International published a document "Abuses and war crimes by the Aidar Volunteer Battalion in the north Luhansk region". But it's member were immune from prosecution, and joined other battalions to oppress the pro-separatists.

Multiple ceasefire agreements known as "Minsk agreements" were signed by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(OSCE), on 5 September 2014, and 12 February 2015, but had little effect as Ukraine continued shelling(bombing) the Donbas region.

In 2019, Ukrainian constituencies in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast were prohibited from voting for Ukraine presidential election, as those regions were considered "under occupation by separatists". An estimated 6.2 million Ukrainian citizens did not get to vote in the election.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published, "Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2019 to 15 February 2020" which detailed over 40,000 casualties of the war between Ukraine nationalists and pro-Independence separatists, upto 2020:

  • over 13,000 people killed:
  1. atleast 3,350 civilians were killed
  2. 5,650 armed separatists were killed
  3. 4,100 Ukrainian nationalists were killed
  • 30,000 injured:
  1. upto 9,000 civilians were injured
  2. 13,000 armed separatists were Injured
  3. 10,000 Ukranian nationalists were injured

Oppression of Luhansk and Donetsk continued, as Ukraine intensified shelling of Donbass in 2021, in what Russia claimed to be a "systematic extermination of the Donbas population", the main reason for the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

4
  • 1
    This answer could use some fact checking and cleanup. For instance, Zelensky was elected in 2019, not 2014.
    – bharring
    Jun 7 at 15:51
  • 1
    Zelenskyy was not elected in 2014, he was appointed by the US. moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/…
    – Neel
    Jun 19 at 18:19
  • 1
    He was an actor in 2014 - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy - be careful about falling down conspirational rabbit holes, your claims don't match observed or documented history.
    – bharring
    Jun 20 at 16:55
  • 1
    I read through the posted article. A great example of redpilling propaganda. I'd suggest doing more research then checking their bias. For example, they keep calling the ousted administration "neutral", and take as granted that pro-Western groups are Nazis. Either is a significant claim, but neither is backed. Regardless, it rightly doesnt mention Zelensky in that timeframe.
    – bharring
    Jun 20 at 17:10
3

This is not some squabble between two small nations.

Russia is a major power, even if their military's readiness isn't on a par with other major nations. It does have some economic influence, especially with the EU. And it does have a substantial storehouse of nuclear weapons.

This is an attack by a major nation on another sovereign nation, without a seminal event (like a military action on the part of Ukraine) to prompt this attack.

Russia has given several reasons for their attack and several goals they seek to achieve, and the reasons/goals tend to change as time passes and events unfold... indicating that the real reason and goal haven't been stated.

Remember that Ukraine deposed a Russian friendly president via a coup a few years ago. Russia can't be happy about that. It is likely that the world's non response to Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea played a role as well.

To the US government, and EU governments, this looks a lot like Hitler in the 1936-1938 time frame, taking over Austria by semi-force, with the tacit approval of the other major European nations - in violation of the Versailles Treaty.

And we all know what that acquiescence led to.

So, there are three reasons that the US views the Ukraine conflict to be in its strategic interests:

  1. Stabilizing the global economy. When a major nation with economic ties to the global economy starts using its military to expand its borders, the global economy is destabilized. The sooner this is resolved, the sooner a major source of instability is removed from the global economy, and we can resume recovering from the pandemic.

  2. Discouraging major military action. Whatever actions taken to combat this expansion via military action will set an example for any other major nation that might be contemplating something similar. A hard economic response now, could stop another major armed conflict.

  3. Preventing a repeat of the Munich Agreement of 1938: "peace in our time". That turned out to be an extremely costly error for the entire world.

1

The reason the US treats the problems of Ukraine as its own, is because a very real sense, it believes Ukraine is its own. When the then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland announced in December 2013, of her desire to overthrow the Ukrainian President, she also said the US had spent $5 billion dollars since 1992, and provided funds which were used to train activists over a period of months, many within the US Embassy in Kiev. Two months later, Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, in a leaked phone conversation, were heard choosing the composition of a new government, which became reality after the US coup deposed Viktor Yanukovych, three weeks later.

Soon after a procession of US politicians, FBI, CIA, NGO's poured into Ukraine. Vice-President Joe Biden became the de-facto administrator of Ukraine until a new President was chosen, by the US, in an election which disenfranchised millions in East Ukraine, who did not recognise the illegal regime. The US then began pumping weapons into Ukraine, and various far-right militias began attacking Russian speakers in the Donbass. This grew into a civil war, which lasted over eight years, leaving 14,000 civilians dead. Despite attempts by Russia, Germany, France to get the parties to negotiate, via the so-called Minsk Accords, the Ukrainian Rada refused to ratify the accords, with the acquiescence of the US. Meanwhile the US continued to train the Ukrainian Army to NATO standards, leading to an escalation in the Donbass in Feb 2022, with OSCE observers registering a 50x increase in artillery attacks on civilian targets. This lead to the intervention of Russia, to prevent a massacre, and to demiliarize Ukraine and restore it to its previous neutral status, and ensure it will never become a member of NATO.

It is rank hypocrisy that the US says Russia's recognition of the DNR and LNR republics is in violation of the Minsk Accords when it did nothing to make the Ukrainians even ratify the accords.

The US just does not like other countries messing with their property.

2
  • 2
    Great answer, thanks for having an adequate point of view on what is happening
    – RoyalGoose
    May 8 at 11:44
  • 2
    Breathtaking lack of references for all of these rather surprising assertions. How's the weather in Petrograd?
    – RedSonja
    May 11 at 11:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .