Ukraine May Have To Go Nuclear, Says Kiev Lawmaker

Tyler Durden's picture

"In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine," warned Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, adding that "If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you." It would seem tough for the West (and their START Treaty) to get behind a nation that, as USA Today reports, believes it may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons to enforce a security pact to reverse the Moscow-based takeover of Crimea. "We gave up nuclear weapons," (inherited from the Soviet Union) because of the 1991 agreement that The United States, Great Britain and Russia would "assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" but Rizanenko told his government today, "now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

 


Via USA Today,

The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact "to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

 

"We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

 

...

 

Rizanenko and others in Ukraine say the pact it made with the United States under President Bill Clinton was supposed to prevent such Russian invasions.

 

The pact was made after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and became Russia, leaving the newly independent nation of Ukraine as the world's third largest nuclear weapons power.

 

...

 

To reassure the Ukrainians, the United States and leaders of the United Kingdom and Russia signed in 1994 the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" in which the signatories promised that none of them would threaten or use force to alter the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

 

They specifically pledged not to militarily occupy Ukraine. Although the pact was made binding according to international law, it said nothing that requires a nation to act against another that invades Ukraine.

 

The memorandum requires only that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments." Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear warheads in return for the promise.

 

...

 

The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated "with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well."

 

...

 

"Everyone had this sentiment that for good or bad the United States would be the world police" and make sure that international order is maintained, Rizanenko said of the Budapest pact.

 

"Now that function is being abandoned by President Obama and because of that Russia invaded Crimea," he said.

 

"In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine," he said. "If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you."

It would appear this is yet another line or "cost" that Obama will have to weigh but the rhetoric doesn't get much more aggressive than that...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
prains's picture

LOL, this fear mongering is going full retard, this is Oligarchs playing for resources nothing more

krispkritter's picture

Welcome to the new Nukraine...

jaap's picture

They already own the 5th largest nuclear plant in the world (and the biggest of Europe, if you concider them european)

 

Manthong's picture

Them US/EU sponsored nut balls over there should be loving nuke stuff, what with Chernobyl being there and all.

max2205's picture

Made a mistake? Really....do you think so? 

 

Trust us......

NoDebt's picture

"You fucked up.  You trusted us."

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Just ask old Muammar al-Gaddafi...oh wait, he is dead now. 

SoberOne's picture

If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes. Period.

Anusocracy's picture

Crimea already has nukes.

gmrpeabody's picture

Are you implying that promises out of Washington are worthless...?

Cause if you are, you are correct sir!

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Kiev is know right, if you are nuclear, no one is invade. Boris is keep Cesium 137 on balcony and is never have break in.

old naughty's picture

so they want to 're-open' chenobyl...

 

may be easier to rent a couple drone ships from RR to tow the tubes from fuk-u

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Crimea is not river, is archipelago on inland sea! You Amerikan is geography suck!

lordylord's picture

"If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you."

What was Iraq all about then???  Oh wait, there wasn't any nuclear weapons there.  So his idiotic logic still stands.  If Saddam had a nuclear bomb (and no oil) we would have never invaded.  Or maybe we would have.  You know, to spread destruction, oops I mean democracy. 

Independent's picture

I guess Hitler finally gets his nuclear weapons.

Yeah Nukraine, what are they going to do, Nuke their own citizens if they want to seceede.  Europe won't take them with nuclear weapons, but they will still take their gold lol.  Besides nukes cost a lot of money, where are they going to get that cash?  Are the fascits in Nukraine going to make a preemptive strike on the Russians with nuclear weapons stationed/given to them by the USA so the USA can get Russias natural resources while not getting America involved in a nuclear war with Russia.  I hope the Russians expand their doctrine to account for proxy nuclear strikes.

Ahhh Boris now I know you are the balcony across the way that GLOWS even in the daytime.  I always thought it was slate tiles you your wall I guess its lead lol.

I didnt know Ukraine had its own Defense Magazine, I found it on bit torrent, here is the link, you click on the little red magnet icon to download but you must first install the torrent software client, there are different brands out there I will put a link to the one I use

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/9736374/Ukrainian_Defense_Review_-_Januar...

here is the torrent software link

http://www.utorrent.com/

there are lots of cool torrent links you can search, I always go for the ebooks...

http://thepiratebay.se/browse

Be careful with downloading current movies and music, though there are ways to do that safely if you read up about it.  Porn and ebooks never a problem.  They also have a bunch of stuff for 3-D printing amongst tons of other little goodies.  You can find tons of survival book compilation archives etc, if anyone is interested I can give you names of some of the good survival book archive names I have gotten (they include small scale survival gardening/farming and raising animals etc), just let me know

 

Dr. Engali's picture

Well then let's ask Saddam..... of wait. Well how about Osama?.... nevermind.

smlbizman's picture

let me get this straight...we can go to dc and put oblowme and the wookie on the street and than we can start making rules and than start selling shit!!!?....plus stumpy arms mccant and that transvestite from s.c. will support us...wtf are we waiting for???

USisCorrupt's picture

Japan and Ukraine could just swap territory. Problem solved.

Hippocratic Oaf's picture

"Everyone had this sentiment that for good or bad the United States would be the world police"

 

 

AMERIIIIIIIIICAAAAAAAAAA........................

America, Fuck yea, coming again to save the motherfucking day, yea.................

Mountainview's picture

Chernobyl is in Ukraine and still radiating... maybe thereare some other sources...Libyans used to buy in Ukraine...

johnQpublic's picture

maye they can get a nuke from vietnam

Renewable Life's picture

I find this statement interesting on so many levels.....

So your saying that nukes could actually be used to keep a population of your "own citizens" inside the walls of an existing Country......."Prison Country" to be specific!  Because Im pretty sure, what happened in Ukraine is this; a group of euro sympathizers and ultra nationalist seized the Country in a coup, prompting a ethnic panic in the "Russian" sector of the Country, which opened the door for Putin to enter by request!!! The eastern section of Ukraine was GOING TO SUCCEED with or without Russian troops, so essentially the wacko's in the West of Ukraine are saying, with nukes, we hold Russia out and the Russian Ukrainians IN!!!!

Ron Paul always said, one day the walls you think you are building to protect yourself from others, will be used to imprison you in a tyrannical society!  A tyrannical Ukraine just confirmed that notion today in my mind!

 

silvermail's picture

Russia does not violate international agreements on safeguards the integrity and security of Ukraine.
Think about what I say, from the standpoint of international law.
1. In Kiev, was a coup d'etat. So-called "new authorities in Kiev", seized power undemocratic, unconstitutional way, by force of arms, through mass murder and deception. These people are illegitimate. Moreover, they are criminals. It does not depend on the opinions of Washington and Brussels. It depends only on the rule of law. For all the norms of law, these people are criminals .
2. Via actions of these criminals in Kiev, Ukraine as State, actually was split into two parts. One part of this is part of the captured coup, including Kiev. And the second part - this is the part where the population and local authorities have remained faithful to the Constitution of Ukraine and the legitimate, democratically elected President of Ukraine.

And now think please: which of these two parts of the country, today has the right to represent Ukraine as a legal entity?
I mean: What today is the "Ukraine", in terms of the Act:
- It's the rebels who had committed an armed coup in Kiev?
- Or is the region to remain faithful to the Constitution and laws of the state government?

Well, go further.
Russia, according to an international treaty is obliged to observe the integrity of Ukraine and its safety. State - is primarily population. In this situation, Russia not only has the right to impose its troop, but must do it.
Because the deployment of troops to maintain the integrity of Ukraine and at the request of the legitimate President and the people of Ukraine - for Russia is a duty arising out of an international treaty. Furthermore, in the current situation coup sending troops is the only way for Russia to conscientiously fulfill their obligations under the international treaty for protection Ukraine as a state and legal entity.

In addition, the legal concept of "invasion" is contrary to the introduction of troops to restore constitutional order, at the request of the legal, legitimate, democratically elected President, with the support of 80% of the population.

yrbmegr's picture

The Ukrainian Parliament impeached and voted to remove Yanukovich from office.  This is apparently broadly consistent with the Ukrainian constitution.  Was there something about that procedure that was unconstitutional?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Was there something about that procedure that was unconstitutional?

Good one. Better question to ask: was there anything about that procedure that was constitutional?

http://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2014/03/09/ukraine-and-twenty-fir...

I know I won't get an answer because Ukrainian Junta Citizenism citizens are duplicitous. But aren't you people never grow tired of posting cheap propaganda?

yrbmegr's picture

My understanding is that the Ukrainian constitution provides for removal of the president from office on successful impeachment, which involves a vote in the parliament.  I don't know whether this vote was strictly according to proper procedure, however.  Hence, my question.

silvermail's picture

We often hear from the western media that "Ukraine's parliament dismissed Yanukovych from power." But the parliament has no right to remove from power the President. Parliament can only declare impeachment. Impeachment was not.

silvermail's picture

At the time of the vote, it was no longer a "parliament." At the time of the vote, it was a bunch of criminal rebels and accomplices criminal rebels.
You want to see how to vote these criminals? See here:
http://cubeupload.com/im/d8Bvfn.jpg

http://cubeupload.com/im/OsmCBf.jpg

http://cubeupload.com/im/wxnm6d.jpg

This is called the rule of law and democracy, is not it?

yrbmegr's picture

Are you saying the people who cast votes in the parliament for removal of Yanukovich were not elected members of parliament who had the power to cast those votes?  Had the parliament been dissolved by that time?

silvermail's picture

I want to say that one part of the people who were elected at the time of voting already were criminals.
A second part of the people who were elected at the ballot box were forcibly barred from voting. On their behalf, voted criminals. See photos as criminals vote on behalf of the deputies, who were not allowed into the hall polls.

I want to say that one part of the people who were elected at the time of voting already were criminals.

A second part of the people who were elected at the ballot box were forcibly barred from voting. On their behalf, voted criminals. See photos as criminals vote on behalf of the deputies, who were not allowed into the hall polls.

http://cubeupload.com/im/d8Bvfn.jpg

 

http://cubeupload.com/im/OsmCBf.jpg

 

http://cubeupload.com/im/wxnm6d.jpg

SDShack's picture

All very true, but your entire premise is based on following the rule of law, and what the sociopaths have done is obliterate the rule of law throughout the world because that is the only real check on their power. Now every decision is based on brute force... coercion either through direct military/political confrontation, or coercion through economic/financial blackmail and bribery. The world is heading for a great conflict, because TPTB are ONLY operating in conflict mode.

Canadian Dirtlump's picture

fear mongering is the understatement of the century. Yesterday I heard some US military official talking about how turkey and poland are next. Also, if being a nuclear power makes people not invade you, why is a certain country in the middle of the middle east with 200 nuclear warheads constantly under existential threat.

 

LOL!

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

You are prove point, if nuclear, you are not attack, threaten maybe, but not attack, certainly not to be occupation.

dark pools of soros's picture

they ARENT under threat..  they just bitch and moan like the needy JAP yenta they are

LawsofPhysics's picture

Where have you been?  It's always been about power and control other real resources, including the human kind.

Money has always been an illusion.  WTF?

same as it ever was.

caconhma's picture

Didn't  the USA and NATO invade Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon,  Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yugoslavia including Kosovo, Libya, Syria and America best friend and its master is in a state of permanent wars of aggression?

How soon our Nobel Peace Prize winner will start a WWIII? Well, we are already in a state of permanent wars but our government calls them by different names.

Just wait for a few years and China will be itching to be a world policeman.

Skateboarder's picture

There were never any leaders to begin with. 'Rapists' might be a more appropriate term.

onewayticket2's picture

'Bluto! You fucked up....you trusted us!'

V in PA's picture

And Bankers!! Don't forget the Bankers!

Debugas's picture

forget even that - assasinations is so 19th century

start with bribes first

Skateboarder's picture

"Everyone had this sentiment that for good or bad the United States would be the world police" and make sure that international order is maintained, Rizanenko said of the Budapest pact.

"Now that function is being abandoned by President Obama and because of that Russia invaded Crimea," he said.

A trillion thundering typhoons. Now I've seen stupid.

johnQpublic's picture

The world police, they live inside of my head
The world police, they come to me in my bed
The world police, they're coming to arrest me, oh, no

Sudden Debt's picture

GIVE'M A NUKE AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!!

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Lemme see if I got this:

 

[1] "Ukraine with nukes = Good", but "Iran with nukes = Bad"?

[2] "Israel with homeland+nukes = Double-plus Good", but "Palestinians with homeland + rockets = Double-plus Bad"

Makes perfect sense*.

* If you're a globalist Neocon asshole.  IOW, if your name is Bandar, Brzezinski, Bush, Cheney, McInsane, NuttyNYahoo...