CLEVELAND, OH – Archives of United States national security records from 1990 through 1996 feature a series of 91 documents with transcripts of conversations between Russia and Ukraine’s leaders; and Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. Every member of Congress should have reviewed Bush’s presidential papers and considered his and Clinton’s foreign policies and agreements prior to voting to re-arm a Ukrainian nationalist government the former presidents helped Russia dis-arm.
In 1990 Ukraine was a growing nationalist state of the Communist Soviet Union with 1400 nuclear warheads on its soil that faced the United States of America. Its citizens had been politically motivated, again, towards Nazi-like “nationalism” like they were during World War I and World War II and wanted independence from the Soviet Union. United States intelligence reports Bush and Clinton reviewed during the early 1990’s described the growing nationalist “radicalization” of Ukrainian politics. Zelenskyy’s current government is a byproduct of revolts that caused two former Ukrainian presidents to flee.
Since 1795 Ukraine was Russian territory. Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was a supporter of democratizing the Communist nation and allowing the 15 separate Soviet Union states to decide for themselves if they wanted to be a united national political and economic union or separate republics. It was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Voters in the Soviet Union’s “Slavic” and “Islamic” republics favored independence in the elections.
The “leader level” conversations in 1991 between Bush, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Ukraine’s new nationalist president, Leonid Kravchuk, focused on the multitude of problems that came with reorganizing new governments and creating new alliances between them. Of concern to Bush was who would control the military bases and hardware Russia had built in Ukraine, Belarus and Khazakstan as now former members of the Soviet Union. The word “Belarus” translates to “White Russia.” All three now ex-Soviet Union states were locations for Russia’s “aimed at America” nuclear warheads.
Ukraine’s more than 1400 nuclear warheads like in Belarus and Khazakstan were intended for the United States of America. So were the 14 bio-terrorism laboratories. Russia’s nuclear warhead stockpile in Ukraine made it the world’s third largest “nuke” warehousing site.
Ukrainian nationalists wanted to keep the 1400 nuclear warheads that were pointed in the direction of the United States of America. They wanted Russia’s bio-terrorism laboratories and all of the armed forces, military installations and military hardware Russia had built-up or maintained inside Ukraine. They wanted Russia’s naval operation in the Black Sea. They wanted the existing military personnel to pledge allegiance to the new government. Security concerns worsened when Ukraine’s nationalist leaders ordered Russian Federation-controlled troops to sign the loyalty pledges.
These moves and others by Ukrainian nationalists made no one in Eastern Europe, including the North Atlantic Treat Organization (NATO), comfortable. America’s presidents were clear to Ukraine’s new leadership that our government was behind the Russian Federation’s plans to remove their nuclear warheads. The economic sanctions that Biden is pushing against Putin is the opposite of Clinton’s threat of economic sanctions against Ukraine’s new government if the nationalists leading it did not cooperate with Russia. Yeltsin had told Ukraine’s new leadership they’d get no oil as a starting point if they continued to resist.
Bush, Clinton, Russian leaders Boris Yeltsin, Mikhail Gorbachev and even Ukraine’s president, Leonid Kravchuk, did not want Ukrainian nationalists armed with nuclear warheads and granted access to Russia’s weapons arsenal. All eyes were on the Russian Federation to disarm the Ukrainians by removing its warheads and military weaponry; and doing so forcibly if they resisted.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin also had to negotiate the removal of nuclear warheads from Belarus and Ukraine; as well as fighting off an attempted coup to remove Gorbachev from the presidency. Russian generals placed Gorbachev under house arrest because they disagreed with his allowing Soviet Union states like Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan and others to become independent if each state’s Communist citizenry voted to leave. Russian President Vladmir Putin was leading Russia’s KGB in 1990. He resigned and stayed out of the coup though he disagreed with the Soviet Union break-up.
Unlike Presidents Barack Hussein Obama and Biden, both Bush and Clinton were having no conversations about delivering weapons to Communist Ukrainian nationalists or the militias backing them. [NOTE: Obama denied requests for lethal weapons and agreed to send non-lethal military hardware to Ukraine. It was under Trump that Ukraine was armed with $47 million in javelin missiles and anti-missile defense weapons.] It was Russia then as now who’s citizens were militarized to fight the extermination-minded ethnic extremism associated with Ukrainian nationalism. Bush and Clinton followed Russia’s lead. Bush made it clear that Ukrainian cooperation was a must in support of Russia’s desire to disarm Ukraine during a November 30, 1991 conversation with Yeltsin from Camp David.
“I hope you understand that as a democratic nation, we must support the will of the Ukrainian people. But we want to do so in a way that encourages a peaceful transition to a new order, built on a strong, friendly, Ukrainian-Russian relationship.”
Please wait while flipbook is loading. For more related info, FAQs and issues please refer to DearFlip WordPress Flipbook Plugin Help documentation.
Bush explained to Yeltsin how he intended to approach the new Ukrainian nationalist government during a scheduled conversation with Kravchuk. The new Ukrainian president was elected after voters voted themselves out of the Soviet Union. The Supreme Council of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on July 16, 1990 signed a “Declaration on the state sovereignty of Ukraine” and the new government was formed.
Bush informed Yelstin he was telling Kravchuk the United States would support central (Russian) control over the nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil; a non-nuclear Ukraine; respect for human rights with equal rights for minorities; implementation of existing treaties like the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START. That was in exchange for less than $200 million in United States aid to cover the costs of the dismantling and transfer of the weapons. If Ukraine’s nationalist government did not cooperate with the Russian Federation they’d get no nuclear warhead dismantling or maintenance funds from the United States of America.
American money then was for Ukraine to buy trucks, cranes and any other equipment needed to dismantle and package nuclear warheads for a trip to Russia. The $13.6 billion Biden, Harris and Congress are delivering to “re-arm” Ukraine from America’s perspective of the nationalist nation in 1991 is insane. Between Ukraine’s $13.6 billion and Israel’s $3.9 billion that’s $17.5 billion Congress is spending outside the United States of America to arm former “Russian” citizens of the Soviet Union. The top three ethnic groups in Israel are Soviet Russian, Ukrainian and Polish.
Among the 91 declassified national security documents is a very direct and to the point September 16, 1994 report from Russian nuclear warhead designer and engineer Vitaly Kataev. He offered Clinton’s administration and Congress a succinct explanation of the safety problems Ukrainian nationalist politicians lacked the sophistication to identify as talking points in their “keep the warheads” discussions. Zelensky appears not to comprehend the future problems Ukrainian President Kravchuk eliminated when he agreed to give Russia back its 1400 nuclear warheads that would now cost billions to maintain while sitting and collecting dust.
There are materials like “tritium” in nuclear warheads that become unstable without maintenance and replacement. Tritium is a radioactive isotope also known has “hydrogen 3” that has a half life of 12.5 years. At the time Ukrainian nationalists were thinking of trying to keep the nuclear warheads the Tritium half life had degraded to between 5 and 8 years. They required an expensive maintenance overhaul or an expensive dismantling. Bush and Russia had agreed to the Strategic Arms Reduction Act (START) so the planet’s two largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons were seeking to reduce their expensive-to-maintain inventories.
The fact that there’s not been a nuclear war underscores the burden of maintaining thousands of nuclear warheads that have been in existence and used in war only in Japan at Hiroshima and Nagosaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. What Kataev understood was that Ukraine’s academic and professional infrastructure lacked the technical capacity, existing facilities and financial resources to maintain 1400 nuclear warheads that would not likely be used for another 77 years. A workforce trained, perpetually, to know nuclear weapons technology did not exist in Ukraine. The Russian Federation educated its own loyal and trusted citizens to protect its nuclear scientific secrets.
Russia’s nuclear warheads were stockpiled in Ukraine but the Russian Federation kept for itself the secret launch codes and technology to construct and dismantle them. That information was treated as a Russian Federation national security secret and not shared with Ukraine’s officials. Especially not its nationalist politicians. The Bush presidential papers describe how the Russian Federation had no intention of allowing Ukrainians to participate in dismantling the nuclear warheads because doing so would teach them how they were constructed.
Ukraine’s technical competence in handling nuclear energy was demonstrated with the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion during a routine safety test. Chernobyl’s Ukrainian managers, engineers and technicians failed to communicate with each other and follow instructions during the safety test. The Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion is still the worst in the world. Kataev offered the perspective that Ukraine’s new nationalist political leaders in 1991 were intellectually primitive bribery artists.
Ukraine does not have specialized facilities, including the material and technological base, for the processing and production of nuclear warheads. Ukraine cannot create such conditions independently. In accordance with the non-proliferation of nuclear technology regime nobody has the right to provide Ukraine this kind of assistance. The nuclear warheads still remaining in Ukraine were manufactured no less than 5-8 years ago, and some of those are now very close to the critical line in terms of their length of service. The absence of a clear understanding of the operation of the nuclear warheads on the part of the Ukrainian political leadership puts Ukraine in a difficult situation. They waste time trying to play political games with nuclear warheads (with the purpose to blackmail both the American and the Russian sides economically). The Russian politicians, who accepted these rules of the game, in essence create certain points of focused attention, thus encouraging Ukraine to squeeze financial resources out of Russia and contributing to the dangerous delays in the resolution of the question about the transfer of the charges to the Russian reprocessing plants.
Biden may or may not remember that he voted for the Nunn-Lugar Soviet Threat Reduction Act of 1991 to ensure the “disarmament” of Ukraine, Belarus and Khazakstan after they left the Soviet Union’s jurisdiction. A legislator who has actually read a law they voted to support retains the knowledge even if it’s years later and their memory has faded.
The “Nunn-Lugar Soviet Threat Reduction Act” is named for former Biden colleagues and ex-United States Senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Discussion of the START or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties consumed a considerable amount of Congress and the nation’s time as no one wanted the 1400 warheads Russia housed in Ukraine pointed in our nation’s direction.
Please wait while flipbook is loading. For more related info, FAQs and issues please refer to DearFlip WordPress Flipbook Plugin Help documentation.
Nunn-Lugar’s Soviet Threat Reduction Act was implemented, administratively, as the Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. It’s purpose was to back the securing and dismantling of weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in the former states of the Soviet Union. From America’s perspective Bush wanted the nukes and the chemical weapons laboratories destroyed. A March 11, 2022 fact sheet published by the United States Department of Defense shows $200 million in funding to Ukraine since 2005 under the Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
Since 2005 United States presidents have funded Ukraine’s 46 bio-terrorism laboratories and a series of interconnected medical facilities. The specific wording of the original federal law under Part B gave bureaucrats instructions to fund the destruction of the bio-terrorism laboratories and not their “safe maintenance.”
“Prohibits U.S. assistance to the Soviet Union, any of its republics, or any successor entity in destroying nuclear and other weapons under this title, unless the President certifies to the Congress that the proposed recipient is committed to: (1) making a substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying such weapons; (2) forgoing military modernization that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; (3) forgoing use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons; (4) facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction; (5) complying with relevant arms control agreements; and (6) observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.”
Five days before Putin began his February 24, 2022 military operation, Zelenskyy publicly gave the Russian leader yet another reason for the de-militarization part of his plans. In his address before the Munich Security Conference on February 19, 2022, Zelenskyy spoke of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances that came with six assurances of protections for Ukraine. Zelenskyy offered his belief that Russia had violated the Budapest Memorandum four times and implied that all the nuclear disarmament treaties were voided. Those would not be the right words for a
There are no assurances from Biden that Ukraine’s Zelenskyy hasn’t already been quietly developing nuclear capabilities. Putin launched his military operation five days after Zelenskyy’s words below. Like Zelenskyy’s March 2021 presidential decree declaring all the governments and legal transactions in the Crimean cities to be voided, his Munich security conference words literally proclaimed that Ukraine was going to re-arm and go nuclear if he wanted.
Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. We also do not have part of the territory of our state that is larger in area than Switzerland, the Netherlands or Belgium. And most importantly – we don’t have millions of our citizens. We don’t have all this.
Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.
Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.
I also propose to convene a summit of permanent members of the UN Security Council in the coming weeks with the participation of Ukraine, Germany and Turkey in order to address security challenges in Europe. And elaborate new, effective security guarantees for Ukraine. Guarantees today, as long as we are not a member of the Alliance and in fact are in the gray zone – in a security vacuum.
What else can we do now? Continue to effectively support Ukraine and its defense capabilities. Provide Ukraine with a clear European perspective, the tools of support available to candidate countries, and clear and comprehensive timeframes for joining the Alliance.
Support the transformation in our country. Establish a Stability and Reconstruction Fund for Ukraine, a land-lease program, the supply of the latest weapons, machinery and equipment for our army – an army that protects the whole of Europe.
At the beginning of my analysis I shared that nuclear warheads on Ukrainian soil were intended for Americans. In his speech above I redlined Zelenskyy’s choice of spoken words in identifying why he wanted “the latest weapons, machinery and equipment” for “an army that protects the whole of Europe.” The nationalists Zelenskyy leads have not been pleased that former Ukrainian leaders surrendered 1400 nuclear warheads that were aimed in the direction of the United States of America. That’s Zelenskyy’s implied message to Europeans in his speech at the Munich Security Conference. Putin reacted, hard, five days later.
The “propagandized” American media has reported nothing about the deaths associated with Ukraine’s 8-year war with Russian-friendly Ukrainians living in Crimean cities like Donbass, Donetsk and Luhansk. Approximately 1300 Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OCSE) inspectors have twice-monthly documented war-like acts of violence in Crimean cities since December 2014. The 8-years of pleas for help from each city’s mayor have gone unreported by the propagandized media. Reporters lying to Americans have ignored the mayoral pleas for help as the basis for Putin’s “de-nazification” and “de-militarization” operation against Zelenskyy’s killing-machine nationalist government.
Putin has made it clear that the elimination of the “nationalist” government Zelenskyy leads is the “de-nazification” and “de-militarization” of his army and militias now taking place in the former Soviet Union state. After Putin’s military operation is completed, all Ukrainians – nationalist or Russian-Ukrainian – will be protected by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and local police under Russia’s control as Ukraine was before the Soviet Union break-up in 1991. Zelenskyy and his “Nationalist” administration will have to step down. Of course Zelenskyy doesn’t like Putin’s surrender terms. At least they’re talking as Putin’s armed forces are now in Kyiv or Ukraine’s capitol.
While Putin and Zelenskyy are trying to negotiate a peace agreement, Biden and the curve-graded, non-reading and patriotically-compromised Democratic controlled Congress are disrupting their diplomatic discussions by preparing to send $13.6 billion in weapons and humanitarian aid to the already beaten Ukrainian army and militias. Biden and a bi-partisan majority in Congress are ignorantly supplying out-militarized Ukrainian nationalist militias with weapons that will lead to an extension of the conflict, suffering and deaths.
Americans should consider that the $650 million in military equipment Biden sent Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s nationalist militias last November was wiped out in the first hours of the Russian army’s February 24, 2022 military operation. 74 military targets were struck by missiles. 14 airfields were rendered unusable for jets to take off and land. The only aircraft flying over Ukraine belongs to Russia.
The previous aircraft, missiles, anti-missile and anti-tank equipment Ukraine received from Obama, Donald James Trump, reluctantly, and now the Biden-Harris administration has been destroyed. Poland’s government told the Biden administration they were willing to donate fighter jets to Ukraine; but American armed forces would have to deliver them into the Russian army-controlled territory. In one of his rare moments of lucid thinking Biden said “no.”
If and when the weapons Biden and Congress’ are sending to Zelenskyy arrive in the “area” of Ukraine and into the hands of nationalist militias, Putin’s Russian Federation army has to destroy or capture every piece of the $6.5 billion in military equipment to achieve his “de-militarization” goal. According to Russia’s TASS news agency, the Biden-Harris administration has made the convoys that will carry the weapons to Ukraine “legitimate targets for Russian forces.” That’s according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.
“It’s the U.S. that is the source of the maximum escalation tension on international platforms. Never mind what they are doing in material terms supporting the criminal Kiev regime.”
Biden’s re-arming decision has to be viewed as an aberation in longstanding American foreign policy. Why points back to Hunter Biden, Igor Kolomoisky, Burisma Holdings and Privatbank. Why points to Biden’s billion dollar obstruction of a Ukrainian criminal investigation that involves his son.
[All photos fairly used for educational purposes].