Thread by @Russian_Starr

Class on Ukraine is in session!

I'm gonna explain why the progressive call for diplomacy on Ukraine is hollow, lacking in facts, and devoid of context by introducing you to a piece of diplomacy that was supposed to prevent this Russian-made crisis from happening.

Thread.

My thesis is simple: Diplomacy often doesn't work because a. one or all sides is a bad actor (Putin) b. the promises (treaties, memorandums, etc) are broken (i.e Minsk I, II)c. the diplomatic effort was flawed from the jump and this takes me to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

After the fall of the USSR, Ukraine had the 3rd-biggest nuclear stockpile in the world, as they we left over from the USSR. Ukrainian leadership at the time believed that Moscow still wanted to invade them and they were right. Duma officials were discussing such a possibility.

In Washington, there was a big priority on getting Ukraine to ditch those weapons. I won't get into the weeds, but many of Ukraine's ICBMs could hit the U.S. and there was a fear that Ukraine could not secure them properly and that they would get into the wrong hands.

Keep in mind that Yugoslavia was also breaking up at the time and escalating to Civil War. There were real fears of conflict across Europe and that nukes could be used and sold off. That was a terrifying possibility that kept Washington up at night.

Washington went to Ukraine and asked them to give up their nukes cause It'll make everyone safer." In everyone, the Americans meant them. LOL!

Because their long range nuclear missile were pointed at us and could literally destroy every major US city 50 thousand times over.

At the time, Ukraine was told that the U.S. would help retire their stockpile because Ukraine could not afford to. (Nukes are very expensive to destroy, if you didn't know!) Ukraine didn't immediately give in to U.S. requests because they didn't trust Moscow.

Keep in mind that Russia never saw Ukraine as independent because Ukraine was always "Little Russia" to folks in Moscow. Ukraine is viewed in Moscow as a breakaway region that has to be broken to submission. That context matters if you want to understand the Ukrainian side.

Ukraine was dominated by a number of ethnic groups, including Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles, Austrians, and Swedes, as well as, eventually, the Russian Empire during the reign of Catherine the Great, as Vox points out: vox.com/2022/1/30/2290…

So Ukrainians have been used to being the subject of other nations for hundreds of years, including several hundred under brutal rule of Russia in its various political states. There has hardly been a 50-60 year span in which Ukraine's borders have not shifted for some reason.

Let's get to the Budapest Memorandum. Kyiv signed the document, but, as I said earlier, it was flawed. It was a non-binding agreement signed by Washington, Moscow and Kyiv. Also, it said neither state would pressure Ukraine economically and they would not use nukes against Kyiv.

By the way, non-binding means the memorandum was not legally enforceable. Which means America didn't have to come to Kyiv's aid if Moscow reneged. Here in Ukraine, a retired Ukrainian general told me the memorandum was a piece of toilet paper.

He wasn't wrong.

My point is that, as flawed as the Budapest memorandum was, Ukraine negotiated in good faith and there isn't any time in the past 30 years when Ukraine didn't do so. Moscow, on the other hand, broke every line in the agreement since 1994.

Be it meddling in Ukrainian elections--especially in Crimea--, pumping Ukraine with Russian-language disinformation or threatening Ukraine with gas politics, Moscow has been bullying Kyiv because their people never bought into "Novorossiya" or New Russia.

So, here is where I get on progressives on diplomacy.

Diplomacy has not worked since 1994. There have been at least 5-6 documents between Ukraine and Russia dealing with conflicts that Moscow started. At what point does one ask if diplomacy is working?

And while the U.S. was not legally bound to provide military support to Ukraine under Budapest agreement, they did give a handshake, as murky and unclear as it was. That the U.S. is providing some military aid is a moral obligation under that 1994 agreement.

Does America really want to sign pieces of paper, only to leave our allies in the lurch? Should America help a sovereign nation protect itself? The 1994 agreement was a moral commitment at the least and the U.S. *IS* obligated to fulfill at least that.

I also find it funny how people evoke Iraq and call for peace. I wonder if these same folks calling for peace, if given a second chance, would have allowed the Rwandan genocide to take place. Or have allowed the Bosnian genocide to go unchecked? NATO responded to the latter.

Also, I have seen no progressive provide any direct policy solutions to Ukraine other than we want peace. That is so naive because one party (Russia) clearly doesn't. All Ukraine is asking for is aid so that can shoot back at their oppressors. We owe them that.

The 1994 Budapest agreement may not be legally binding but it was a moral and very real diplomatic approach that ended up not being honored by Russia because they had no intention of abiding by it because they suffer no consequences if they don't.

Putin, his inner circle need to be sanctioned. Certain financial institutions should be hit. They need to be cut off from world orgs. Oligarchs who pimp K Street for lobbying influence need to be restricted to Russia, the country they steal from to offshore money in the U.S.

So far, progressives are coming off as weak and show they are not prepared to protect the U.S. from real world threats. Of course, I don't want America at war, but this scenario is not Iraq and to suggest that shows folks are ignorant about the threat Russia poses.

If progressives' response is to ultimately do nothing to support Ukraine beyond releasing statements calling for peace, then say that. I don't care if folks disagree with me. What I do care about is talking points that show progressives understand the issue and they clearly don't

I want diplomacy to work. Most of work is about cutting military spending and banning nuclear weapons. I am not a hawk at all; those folks don't like me at all. I do care about defense and supporting allies and some types intervention, most of which aren't US boots on the ground.

Ukrainians don't want US soldiers on their land. They don't want Russians on their soil, either. They just wanna be left alone to choose their own destiny. The U.S. is obligated to help them see that destiny--even if it means sending them lethal aid to ensure they live to see it.

That, my friends, is diplomacy with teeth.

END.