.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
148
Israelis in Thailand on Alert After Security Warning
you are fantastically deranged if you believe that load of codswallop. -
1
The Broken Promises of the Budapest Memorandum and Its Stark Lessons
The lesson from recent (and less recent) events is that it is obvious to all that a country without nuclear weapons can easily become a prey or a puppet. It may lead to nuclear proliferation. -
2
Thai healthcare tycoon Boon Vanasin flees as fraud charges mount
Boon rhymes with tycoon -
-
60
Driving round on my Harley shouting 'Slava Ukraini' to passers by..
Western anchor?...or are you trying for homophonics? -
1
The Broken Promises of the Budapest Memorandum and Its Stark Lessons
In 1994, a groundbreaking agreement was forged with Ukraine, a nation then holding the third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union's dissolution. The Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal. The promise was clear: "Give up your nuclear weapons, and in return, we will respect your borders and independence." It seemed a prudent path toward global disarmament, reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict. The agreement’s key provisions affirmed the signatories’ commitment to respect Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty, as well as to refrain from threatening or using force against the country. Yet, these assurances were first shattered in 2014 when Russia invaded and illegally annexed Crimea. The façade of cooperation completely crumbled on February 24, 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than 1,000 days later, the war rages on, exposing not only Russia’s betrayal of the Memorandum but also the fragility of such international agreements. Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons—a stockpile large enough to have made it a formidable nuclear power—was based on trust in the Memorandum’s guarantees. Without nuclear deterrence, Ukraine has faced Russia’s aggression, its sovereignty blatantly violated. Vladimir Putin’s actions reveal the hollowness of Russia’s promises, casting doubt on the credibility of multilateral agreements aimed at ensuring global security. Russia’s disregard for its commitment has implications far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The Budapest Memorandum is now a cautionary tale for any nation contemplating disarmament. If a country like Ukraine, once armed with a nuclear arsenal, can be invaded despite international guarantees, why would any other nation agree to surrender its nuclear capabilities? Worse still, this betrayal could encourage non-nuclear states to pursue weapons of mass destruction, further undermining global disarmament efforts. The Budapest Memorandum's failure has also eroded trust in multilateral institutions and their ability to uphold international law. Negotiating complex agreements is already a daunting task; seeing them ignored when geopolitics turn volatile is a devastating blow to the principles of diplomacy and cooperation. If such agreements cannot withstand the strains of conflict, what hope is there for resolving disputes or preventing future wars through peaceful means? Few people today are aware of the Budapest Memorandum and the commitments it enshrined. Yet its relevance is critical as the world grapples with questions of security, sovereignty, and the efficacy of international law. If treaties like this are disregarded, what other mechanisms exist to prevent a descent into global anarchy? For those who believe in the power of collective action to address shared challenges, the situation is deeply troubling. The rule of law is under attack, and defending it demands more than words. The international community must confront the implications of Russia’s actions and recommit to upholding agreements like the Budapest Memorandum. Otherwise, the trust necessary for global cooperation—and the vision of a world free from nuclear threats—may be lost forever. Based on a report by Virgin 2024-11-25 -
0
World War III Has Already Begun": Ukraine's Former Military Chief Warns of Global Conflict
Ukraine's former military leader, Valery Zaluzhny, has issued a chilling warning, declaring that World War III is already underway as authoritarian regimes, including North Korea, Iran, and China, openly align with Vladimir Putin's Russia. Speaking at the UP100 award ceremony in Kyiv, Zaluzhny, now serving as Ukraine's envoy to the United Kingdom, emphasized the global scale of the conflict: “I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun.” Zaluzhny pointed to a new reality on the battlefield, where Ukraine now confronts forces not just from Russia but from its allies. He cited reports that North Korea has sent approximately 10,000 soldiers to the Kursk region to support Moscow's military efforts. “As of this year, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine,” he stated. Tehran's support for Moscow has also become a key factor, with Iran providing thousands of Shahed drones to Russia and sharing technology for their production. Since the war's outbreak two and a half years ago, Ukraine claims that over 8,000 Iran-developed drones have targeted military installations and civilian areas. Zaluzhny denounced the attacks, saying, “Let’s be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian 'Shahedis' are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame.” He added that Chinese and North Korean weapons were also being deployed against Ukraine. The geopolitical implications of the conflict have drawn strong responses from Western nations. Moscow’s ambassador to the UK recently accused Britain of being “directly involved” in the war following Ukraine’s use of British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles to strike Russian territory. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rejected the claim, stating, “We’re not at war, but Ukraine certainly is.” Opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer condemned Russia’s aggressive stance, calling Putin’s rhetoric “irresponsible.” He added, “This war could end today if Putin stopped being the aggressor. Russia is the aggressor.” Amid these developments, questions loom over the readiness of Western militaries to respond to an escalation in Eastern Europe. Lt. Gen. Sir Rob Magowan, deputy chief of the British defence staff, assured Parliament that the British Army could fight immediately if necessary. “If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight,” Magowan told the House of Commons defence committee. However, he acknowledged earlier this year that Britain’s military could face severe shortages of ammunition and equipment within two months of sustained conflict with Russia. Ukraine continues to appeal for increased military support from its allies. Kyiv’s use of advanced Western weapons, such as the US-provided ATACMS missiles and British Storm Shadows, marks a turning point in its defensive strategy. A recent attack on Kursk was reportedly the first use of Storm Shadows against Russian territory. Zaluzhny stressed the importance of robust international backing to halt the war’s spread. “It is still possible to stop it here, on the territory of Ukraine,” he said. “But for some reason, our partners do not want to understand this. Ukraine will survive with technology, but it is not clear whether it can win this battle alone.” Zaluzhny, often referred to as the “Iron General” for his leadership during the early stages of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, was removed as Ukraine’s military chief earlier this year. His contributions, including halting Russia’s initial advance, earned him widespread recognition. However, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to replace top military brass in February raised eyebrows, signaling a strategic shift in Ukraine’s war effort. As the war grinds on, Zaluzhny’s warnings echo the broader concerns of a conflict spiraling into global proportions. With North Korea, Iran, and China solidifying their positions alongside Russia, the stakes continue to rise. For Zaluzhny, the message is clear: the world must act decisively to prevent the war from engulfing even more nations. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-11-25 -
0
White House Retreats from Public Eye After Trump Victory
In the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris's significant loss to Donald Trump in the November 5 election, the White House has largely receded from the public spotlight. Both Harris and President Joe Biden have adopted subdued profiles, offering minimal engagement with the press and public. Harris, in particular, has made only sparse appearances around Washington before departing for Hawaii, while Biden has kept the media at a distance during a recent six-day foreign trip and subsequent meetings at the White House. The administration's reluctance to engage openly reflects the challenges of navigating the closing chapter of a lame-duck presidency. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre addressed concerns over Biden's limited press interactions, suggesting there may be more opportunities for engagement before the year’s end. “I get that you all want to hear from the president. I get that. I understand that,” Jean-Pierre said. “And I’m not saying that you won’t. You will. He will certainly continue to engage with all of you.” Critics, however, argue that this strategy could undermine Biden’s ability to shape his legacy. Michael LaRosa, a former aide and press secretary to First Lady Jill Biden, expressed disappointment in Biden’s approach. “I really wish he would start talking to the press, holding news conferences, and engaging with the media more frequently as I always believed he should be doing,” LaRosa said. He added that relying on scripted events might not serve the president’s long-term image. “Given his unceremonious and slapdash passing of the torch last July and the results of the election, one would think he would want to start framing his legacy on his terms, in his own words, and telling his story.” The political dynamics of the past year underscore these criticisms. Biden shocked many when, after a faltering performance in a June debate, he was persuaded to step aside from his re-election bid. His endorsement of Harris briefly energized her campaign, but it ultimately fell to the same divisive and combative political forces that brought Trump back to power. Harris has remained largely absent from the spotlight since delivering a concession speech the day after the election, making a brief appearance at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day and another during a foreign leader’s visit to the White House. She was notably absent from Senate proceedings earlier this week, where Democrats moved to confirm judicial nominees ahead of the Republican takeover. Her absence has fueled questions about her priorities, particularly as Democratic staffers brace for unemployment come January. Jean-Pierre defended Harris’s time off, saying, “The vice president has taken time off to go spend time with her family. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I think she deserves some time to be with her family and to have some downtime.” Meanwhile, Biden’s schedule included a closed-door meeting with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper to discuss hurricane relief and a private Medal of Freedom ceremony for Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood. While private ceremonies can be requested by recipients' families, the lack of public engagement added to the perception of a president retreating from view. On Thursday, Biden returned to the public stage to welcome the Boston Celtics at a White House event, but by Friday, the administration again fell silent. The Bidens hosted a South Lawn dinner for longtime supporters, a gesture that some say should have been highlighted as a positive story for the White House. Biden’s reduced visibility has only amplified ongoing concerns about his age and mental fitness, with critics questioning his ability to complete his term. LaRosa urged a return to more active engagement, suggesting the first lady could play a role in encouraging Biden to step out of the shadows. “The bunker mentality did not serve him or the presidency well, and I hope in these final weeks, the first lady steps in again, lets him off the leash, and lets Biden be Biden at the end of his long career,” LaRosa said. “He didn’t come this far by being shy. Why now?” As the administration faces mounting pressure to define its legacy, the coming weeks will be crucial in determining how Biden and Harris choose to navigate the end of their tenure. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-11-25
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts