Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine

[rupol2000]

I understood all the ins and outs of this conflict. Historically, in the northern Black Sea region, on the territory of Ukraine, there lived Poles, descendants of the Sarmatians and Turks (true ethnic Turks, Torks), the population of the Hetmanate. Bandera justify their claims to the whole of Ukraine, which never belonged to them. This is exactly the Turks. That is why the history of Ukraine in the Ukrainian school and the media is reduced to the history of the Hetmanate, and Polish history is generally not considered.

 

[rupol2000]

This is Hetmanate. It was subordinated to Poland, but after the Khmelnitsky uprising, it passed to Moscow.

 

[Quasar44]

rupol2000

I have no idea what you’re discussing ..my history starts in Ancient Greece

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine​

SUBTOPIC: The Forgotten Agreement
※→rupol2000, Quasar44, et al,

BLUF: There should not be a "war" at all. The Ukraine's security was betrayed.

I understood all the ins and outs of this conflict. Historically, in the northern Black Sea region, on the territory of Ukraine, there lived Poles, descendants of the Sarmatians and Turks (true ethnic Turks, Torks), the population of the Hetmanate. Bandera justify their claims to the whole of Ukraine, which never belonged to them. This is exactly the Turks. That is why the history of Ukraine in the Ukrainian school and the media is reduced to the history of the Hetmanate, and Polish history is generally not considered.

(COMMENT)

In the Budapest Memorandum (1994) was struck → the Ukraine was returned control (to the Russian Federation) of the several thousand nuclear weapons for the guarantee of the Ukraine's security. This agreement was entered into by the US, UK, and Russia (as the defenders of the Ukraine's national security and territorial integrity). You can see, right now, what integrity the word of the former superpowers has today.

The US is no longer the leader of the free world and has lost its credibility as a dependable partner in any mutual defense. When the chips are down, the US cannot be counted upon to do the right thing. The US will sell anyone down the river if it suits them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MisterBeale]

I just watched two documentaries yesterday.

One was aimed at making the viewer feel about these issues.

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom | Full Feature | Netflix​

And the other was aimed at informing the viewer about these issues.

Ukraine on Fire: The Real Story - Full Documentary by Oliver Stone (Original English version)​

I find it interesting how the same facts and same players, can be looked at in two very different ways. I suppose it is easy when both accounts decide to ignore things they don't like to look at.

 

[MisterBeale]

RE: Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine​

SUBTOPIC: The Forgotten Agreement
※→rupol2000, Quasar44, et al,

BLUF: There should not be a "war" at all. The Ukraine's security was betrayed.


(COMMENT)

In the Budapest Memorandum (1994) was struck → the Ukraine was returned control (to the Russian Federation) of the several thousand nuclear weapons for the guarantee of the Ukraine's security. This agreement was entered into by the US, UK, and Russia (as the defenders of the Ukraine's national security and territorial integrity). You can see, right now, what integrity the word of the former superpowers has today.

The US is no longer the leader of the free world and has lost its credibility as a dependable partner in any mutual defense. When the chips are down, the US cannot be counted upon to do the right thing. The US will sell anyone down the river if it suits them.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one can ever actually produce a copy of the Budapest Memorandum. Only claims that security assurances are guaranteed. I maintain that comes with some caveats. Why?

Because the closest outline of that Memorandum I have yet dug up? Is this. . .

Primary Sources​

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994​

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994

The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this...

web.archive.org

"Excerpt:

"Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the cold war, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

2. 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 except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the Ukrainian, English and Russian languages."

That makes no such guarantee of security in case of invasion, only it refers to using this, which I maintain, is exactly the OPPOSITE, of escalating violent confrontation.


Source: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 1
Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

http://insidethecoldwar.org/sites/default/files/documents/Helsinki%20Final%20Act%20August%201%2C%201975_1.pdf

". . . Accordingly, the participating States will refrain from any acts constituting a threat of force or
direct or indirect use of force against another participating State. Likewise they will refrain from
any manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the
full exercise of its sovereign rights. Likewise they will also refrain in their mutual relations from
any act of reprisal by force.
No such threat or use of force will be employed as a means of settling disputes, or questions
likely to give rise to disputes, between them.. . . "

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine​

SUBTOPIC: The Forgotten Agreement
MisterBeale, et al,

BLUF: For discussion purposes, I suppose that the UN Database generated document will have to do. But you are correct, you would (most likely) have to go to the archive to secure a certified copy by the Department of State (DoS).

• Budapest Memorandum Annex to the UN Document ​

S/1994/1399 •​

No one can ever actually produce a copy of the Budapest Memorandum. Only claims that security assurances are guaranteed. I maintain that comes with some caveats. Why?

Because the closest outline of that Memorandum I have yet dug up? Is this. . .

(COMMENT)

Annex I is the Database generated mimic to the :

Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
​

I think this Excerpt makes it very clear that:

"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 except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;"​

I think there is an obligation here. As pointed out by MristerBeale, there might be an alternative interpretation to the pledge:

​

"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 "​

Just My Thought!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MisterBeale]

RE: Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine​

SUBTOPIC: The Forgotten Agreement
MisterBeale, et al,

BLUF: For discussion purposes, I suppose that the UN Database generated document will have to do. But you are correct, you would (most likely) have to go to the archive to secure a certified copy by the Department of State (DoS).

• Budapest Memorandum Annex to the UN Document​

S/1994/1399 •​

(COMMENT)

Annex I is the Database generated mimic to the :

Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons​

​

I think this Excerpt makes it very clear that:

"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 except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;"​

I think there is an obligation here. As pointed out by MristerBeale, there might be an alternative interpretation to the pledge:

​

"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 "​

Just My Thought!

Most Respectfully,
R

I am in definite agreement with you, that the Russian Federation violated the Budapest Memorandum, of this? There can be no doubt.

OTH? I do not believe this, in anyway obligates an escalation of European conflict, by pitting nuclear armed powers against each other. Given the historical experience of European interlocking alliances through WWI, & WWII, and that Russia even signed the Budapest Memorandum. . . if you go back and watch the press conference with U.S. President Clinton, and Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk upon completion of these negotiations, you see how President Clinton dodges the question about any guarantee of providing security against any future Russian imperial designs on Crimea.

Time stamp: 22:30 for the question if you do not want to listen to the whole conference.

President Clinton's News Conference w/ Pres. Kravchuk (1994)​

 

[MisterBeale]

(btw, even using archive, I STILL could not find a copy of the memorandum.)

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Historical background of the conflict in Ukraine​

SUBTOPIC: The Forgotten Agreement
MisterBeale, et al,

OTH? I do not believe this, in anyway obligates an escalation of European conflict, by pitting nuclear armed powers against each other. Given the historical experience of European interlocking alliances through WWI, & WWII, and that Russia even signed the Budapest Memorandum. . .

(COMMENT)

I believe the Russian Federation agrees with you and is so sure that the other Allied Powers are so afraid of an engagement that they will let the Russians get away with anything.

I associate the situation with the similar one faced at the beginning of WWII. Yes, --- I think it is the same appeasement protocol that PM Neville Chamberlain use ("peace at any price"). And that is easy to follow because the US, and the UK do not have to pay the freight. It just may cost the Ukrainians their freedom.

I Concur with your thumbnail assessment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[badger2]

I understood all the ins and outs of this conflict. Historically, in the northern Black Sea region, on the territory of Ukraine, there lived Poles, descendants of the Sarmatians and Turks (true ethnic Turks, Torks), the population of the Hetmanate. Bandera justify their claims to the whole of Ukraine, which never belonged to them. This is exactly the Turks. That is why the history of Ukraine in the Ukrainian school and the media is reduced to the history of the Hetmanate, and Polish history is generally not considered.

You give no dates to establish the argument.

 

[MisterBeale]

You give no dates to establish the argument.

To get an idea of how sane and reliable rupol2000 is? I suggest you look at some of the other OP's that they have made. I don't think they even post in any threads that others make, TBH.

 

[badger2]

The Pentagon is now sending puppets out to different countries, Austin to Bulgaria, for example, which travel is now a historical fact.

We've seen several threads today sent to the "hell" of the Conspiracy forum. Linking the Ukrainian chron for historical facts is Putin's Kinzhal missile strike on Ivano-Frankivsk. This location links to the Pentagon, so we go back to when the Pentagon was "Twinned" with Ivan-Frankivsk. The URL must be typed in by hand, USMB software will reject it. Yahoo Search Ivano-Frankivsk will retrieve the wikipage, at the bottom of which is the pertinent link to the Pentagon for (when [italics]) the "twinning", the linkage occurred:

At entry #20, the column 'Ukrainian ukladeno = 'concluded.'

https://www.mvk.if.ua/uploads/files/51484.pdf

'20. Ukladeno: 04.03.2011.'

So on 2011 Mar 4, the Pentagon symbolically "copulated" with the city of Ivano-Frankivsk. The chron links to the "Lady of Gharyan" the figure of a woman depicted on a wall at Gharyan, Libya in 1943, for on 2011 Mar 2, the Libyan Civil War had begun, with United Nations and NATO as the stars in the show. Furthermore, this penetration into North Africa links to the founding of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1847 Mar 3.

 

[badger2]

UN-NATO in Libya is comparable with UN-NATO Ukraine. Just prior to the Russians entering Ukraine on 2022 Feb 24, theatrics played out in the world media linking UN to Putin. It's already well established that Putin was concerned about Russian language speakers in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and that the Ukraine-Russian language problem has been a lasting conflict. Here is how the theatrics evolved in the media three days before Russian forces entered Ukraine:

Post # 32

Putin a man of action doesn't bluff - Biden and EU are clueless

Putin is unique as a world leader in that he says what he's going to do, and then does it. Putin's combining words with action confounds the lying liberal loon politicians of the EU and U.S. Putin is weak. Threatening Nuclear War as he has so often over the last week proves it. He is impotent...

www.usmessageboard.com

Putin and his associate were mocking the UN, the media continued to favor the UN. The UN just having finished mouthing off about trouble in the Congo, the UN-biased media picked up on it, reifying photos of Congolese (double [italics]) refugees trying to flee Ukraine.

Thus a short analysis of the Libyan Civil War is necessary for resonance with the Pentagon's current puppetry for Ukraine and the rocket strike at Ivano-Frankivsk. Vertep parades on Viche Maidan, and it's not even xmas.

 

[badger2]

Note that to do justice to the investigation requires a review of events at Benghazi.

 

[badger2]

So, a closer look at Putin's rocket-strike target, (as the Pentagon's puppet traveled to Bulgaria) shows that:

1. The U.S. Pentagon was linked to Ivano-Frankivsk, apparently as early as 2009.

2. The "conclusion" of Pentagon's "copulation" with Ivano-Frankivsk occurred two days after the beginning of the Libyan Civil War, which is the UN-NATO link to the bombings in Libya, and one day after the memorial of the founding of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Duh.

 

[rupol2000]

You give no dates to establish the argument.

Everything is easy to find on the Internet.
What dates do you need specifically? The time of joining the hetmanate to Moscow is the uprising of Khmelnitsky. 1654. And so on. Is it hard for you to google it?

 

[rupol2000]

The Pentagon is now sending puppets out to different countries, Austin to Bulgaria, for example, which travel is now a historical fact.

We've seen several threads today sent to the "hell" of the Conspiracy forum. Linking the Ukrainian chron for historical facts is Putin's Kinzhal missile strike on Ivano-Frankivsk. This location links to the Pentagon, so we go back to when the Pentagon was "Twinned" with Ivan-Frankivsk. The URL must be typed in by hand, USMB software will reject it. Yahoo Search Ivano-Frankivsk will retrieve the wikipage, at the bottom of which is the pertinent link to the Pentagon for (when [italics]) the "twinning", the linkage occurred:

At entry #20, the column 'Ukrainian ukladeno = 'concluded.'

https://www.mvk.if.ua/uploads/files/51484.pdf

'20. Ukladeno: 04.03.2011.'

So on 2011 Mar 4, the Pentagon symbolically "copulated" with the city of Ivano-Frankivsk. The chron links to the "Lady of Gharyan" the figure of a woman depicted on a wall at Gharyan, Libya in 1943, for on 2011 Mar 2, the Libyan Civil War had begun, with United Nations and NATO as the stars in the show. Furthermore, this penetration into North Africa links to the founding of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1847 Mar 3.

There is the same connection here as the connection between the United States and the United States of Austria. Ivano-Frankivsk is a city in Galicia, Galicia is a state of great Austria.

 

[rupol2000]

1. The U.S. Pentagon was linked to Ivano-Frankivsk, apparently as early as 2009.

It was time for a change of power. Since then, there has been no true right in the US.

Bush Jr. used to press on the corrupt government of Ukraine, they were afraid of him

 

[badger2]

Everything is easy to find on the Internet.
What dates do you need specifically? The time of joining the hetmanate to Moscow is the uprising of Khmelnitsky. 1654. And so on. Is it hard for you to google it?

Origins of this war and the Ukrainian pathology In general must go back to at least the Neolithic to link up to the theologian's pathology, religion. Next, since Swedish Vikings came south into Ukraine region carrying their swastika with them, we must entertain the idea that Ukraine was founded as a Viking kingship accompanied by the Catholic (protection-racket) mafia. These time periods will more strongly link our war origins and currently, for example, to Ukrainian neo-nazis at Mariupol about to be decimated by Russian forces, people dead (or at least genuflecting), in the streets.

It may be a mistake to leave out of the story the theologian-pimps, as Putin proceeds to destroy the West's mafia cult, because when the CIA goes to church, it's not to pray.