To Outlaw 09
Azor...your points are taken but and there is always a but.....the US as well as the UK really do want to totally "forget" the 1994 Budapest Memorandum...go back and thoroughly reread it...it in fact could be read as to what the responsibilities of both parties are in the event that the Ukraine was invaded...there is even a specific paragraph on what constitutes getting them involved.
That is exactly why the Obama WH from the very beginning used the word "incursion" to get the illusion that the Russians were "not invading" thus the US was not forced to invoke Budapest even though it was not a formal treaty because Clinton knew he could not get it through Congress as a Treaty. But is the underlying international assumption at the time of the signing was.."you give up the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in exchange for our protection in the coming years IF".......
Well the IF came and the US/UK remained totally silent and Russia as always "reinterpreted" the agreement.
Remember Stalin in a 1933 speech to key Party members stated..."we will sign anything and follow it as longs as it benefits us and then ignore them when it does not"....
BUT what is interesting is that Nuland from DoS this last week for the first time used the word "invasion".
Reference the Putin fear of the "last man standing economic syndrome"....a friend of mine is a high German Customs Officer handling the Eastern European truck traffic which includes Russia......Russian long haul truck traffic is down 89% over year and month since 2015 and most of the returning long haul carrying capacity going in the direction of Russia is minimal.
When I commute on the highway that the Russian long haulers use I only see 1-2 per trip where it use to be 10-20.
Right now there are estimates that both eastern Ukraine and Syria are costing Russian 5-7M USDs per day and that for literally months now coupled with the Russian PM's recent Crimea statement to pensioners of "suck it up we are out of money" and indications that Russia is running late in paying their Ukrainian mercenary monthly salaries does not bode well economically speaking...
Reference the cruise missile...the US is highly concerned with the single test launch which was ground based where the missile far far exceeded treaty limits...now comes the problem...the analysts cannot say for certain if the onboard fuel was simply allowed to burn out to see exactly how far it would really travel or was it a deliberate test run for max target range...but when Russians develop a tactical/strategic missile system they tend to develop it for both ground and air launched abilities....
BTW....there are actually some "thinkers" inside Ukraine that will argue that it is far more beneficial for Ukraine to simply give the Donbas to Russia and move on...BUT Russia cannot even support Donbas and really only wants it for leverage and the Ukrainians are afraid this move would then be used to seal forever the return of Crimea--economically speaking decoupling from Donbas would actually help Ukraine long term.
Bookmarks