Ukraine renounced its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises. They’re worthless. Israel takes note.
The pivotal cause of the danger to Ukraine from Russia is utterly absent from the news and commentary on the danger.
The danger to Ukraine is not Vladimir Putin’s thirst for rebuilding the USSR.
It is not the Russian claim that Ukraine is part of Russia.
It is not Joe Biden’s projection of American weakness, first in his inept abandonment of Afghanistan, now in his inept substitution of non-military threats against Russia for strategic military deterrence.
It is not the dependence of Europe, particularly Germany, on Russian energy.
All of these putative causes of the current in Ukraine crises ignore the fundamental cause. It is:
Ukraine’s renunciation of its nuclear weapons in 1994, in exchange for promises to protect Ukraine.
If Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, Russia would not even have invaded Crimea, let alone threatened all of Ukraine.
A nuclear power is not to be messed with. Ukraine was a nuclear power. In fact, it had the third highest cache of nuclear weapons in the world. No more, and now Ukraine is extremely vulnerable.
The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, balanced that concession with this promise:
“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine . . . to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”
Yeah, right.
Existing borders? Russia’s annexation of Crimea showed the emptiness of that promise.
Respect the independence . . . ? In word only, as is now the case.
Read further in the Budapest Memorandum:
“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine.”
Tell that to the conquered population of Crimea and the threatened population of the rest of Ukraine.
The lesson for Israel is clear:
Promises are no substitute for weaponry.
“Deals” with Iran and “diplomacy” with Iran are no substitute for military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
The nations that make these promises do not remember them years later. Neither, it seems, does anyone else.
The reporters that cover the conflicts years later do not remember the prior promises.
The nations threatened by Russian countermeasures to the threats tendered against Russia do not remember the Russia commitment not to make threats to begin with.
Why would North Korea or Iran give up their nuclear weapons and ambitions, respectively, if they see that promises made to sustain their political independence and territorial integrity are meaningless?
It comes down to this: The US is dilly-dallying with “diplomacy” with an Iranian government that is totally uninterested, while the Iranian government pursues its nuclear weapons without hindrance.
And it comes down to this:
It is time for the US to sell Israel the 30,000 pound bunkerbusters. That, short of Israel’s nuclear weapons, is the only alternative to stop Iran’s nuclear program. The US, all pious protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, will not stop Iran’s nuclear progam. All the more so Europe and China.
One would hope that Israel’s possession of this advanced weaponry would be deterrent enough to Iran to halt its nuclear program.
But one does not live by hope alone, still less by the empty promises of Russia, the UK and the US. Face it: the West, including the US, would makes its peace with a nuclear Iran. Israel cannot. So what is worse, to supply Israel with these30,000 pound bunkerbusters, or to leave Israel with its own nuclear weaponry alone to counter the enemy that wants to destroy it?
Copyright © 2022 by the Intermountain Jewish News
