3 Comments
User's avatar
cleyet's avatar

I think the US response to Russia's support of the significant number of Eastern Ukrainians for independence from Kiev another example of its exceptionalism. When the majority Muslims in Kosovo wanted independence from Belgrade the US (Via NATO) bombed Belgrade and other locations.

My guide, when I visited Moscow, expressed anger at Khrushchev's giving away Crimea. I suppose at the time not a problem, because it was still part of the Soviet Union. And later still not a problem, because Kiev was still tied to Russia and not a member of NATO. When conditions change agreements change.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

I agree the intervention in Serbia was a serious example of the US illegally intervening in a sovereign nation. And coming after the beginning of NATO expansion, it *was* a major factor in closing off possibilities for a more stable long-term US/NATO peaceful security arrangement with Russia.

In the case of the US supporting Ukraine now, perceived national interest is clearly a more important consideration for the Biden Administration than defending Ukrainian sovereignty. But the 1991 agreement between Ukraine and Boris Jeltsin's elected government of Russia was very explicit and very legal in international law, and recognized as such by the US, Russia, and the United Nations. So, despite US hypocrisy in violating the sovereignty of Serbia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003, it actually is supporting Ukraine's legitimate claim to sovereignty, however mixed the Administration's motives may be.

Expand full comment
cleyet's avatar

I think Russia made that agreement, because they assumed Kyiv would not be a threat, as a result of the agreement for NATO not to expand. If Russia had not been decimated by Chicago, etc., they would have been able to defend Serbia and prevent the expansion of NATO (again that contrary to USA agreement). I think if circumstance changes then agreement depending become voided. Of course the invasion should have been the last response. However, the threat by the military presence on the border was an important step. NATO chose to ignore it. I think Russia is entitled to now use a demonstration nuclear event. An NEMP over Kyiv would be suitable. This would be much less harmful that the USA's demonstration in '45. It was quite clear that Japan was going to surrender very soon, because of the The Soviet declaration of war. The demonstration was for the Soviet's benefit.

"you" have probably forgotten (or chose to ignore) that The USA has provided two precedents, Japan and Cuba.

Expand full comment