At Helsinki Accord Ukraine Was Part of Russia-What Changed?

Western claims to have honestly expropriated Ukraine from Russia have used a few historical whoppers for pseudo-legalistic assertions of a right-of-annexation of Ukraine and Crimea to independent/western-affiliated status. The 1975 Helsinki accord that included the agreement between N.A.T.O. and the Soviet Union to not change national borders through force is an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords#Signatory_states

When the Helsinki Accord was signed Crimea and Ukraine were Russian as they had been with a few intervals for centuries. After decades of sanctions and Star Wars the Soviet Communist government bit the dust. All were glad that President Gorbachev’s glasnost and Perestroika started a cascade of commercial and political changes to end the Stalinist variety of communism that most hated everywhere except for select establishment organizational persons benefiting from the power of tyranny, and the end of the Evil Empire occurred mostly bloodlessly, yet the transition to a post Soviet new-Russian order was difficult with uncertain course.

Governing institutions and establishments affiliated are generally reluctant to change modus operandi or modus vivendi. The cold war establishment roles were well known-the west found it easier to return to a cold war role model inherited from prior generations than to evolve a good working relationship with Russia. After digesting the eastern European nations that were given up at the end of the Soviet Union the west’s appetite for more of weakened Russia looked toward Ukraine and Crimea.

It is an historical point that gaining a Pyrrhic victory that ends up costing more than staying out of conflict is better avoided. Conflict with Russia over Ukraine-especially Eastern Ukraine and Russia’s vital Dnepr River barge traffic corridor for transport of commodities (one barge is worth 200 truck loads)-can harm the west’s commercial and security interests significantly. Finding new ways to have mutual peace and prosperity is a political method the west avoids to its monomaniacal drive for litigation and conflict as litigation through other means.

Another fiction used by the west is that of Soviet or Russian history in occupation of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states at the end of the Second World War. The false impression is commonly given that naked Soviet aggression took those states through force-and that is a perfect lie. The Soviet Union captured Eastern Europe in counterattacking against the Nazis who had invaded Russia/the Soviet Union. The Russians/Soviets kicked the Nazi butts all the way to the Baltic-all the way to Berlin and it cost them tens of millions of dead Russians. The Russians liberated the Balkans from the Nazis to in long, bloody war. The battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad were famously epic, bloody things of which innumerable movies and documentaries have been made. If the United States had experienced that sort of conflict, how soon would the United States give back those captured territories and trust their former enemies or their political cohabitants?

It took the Soviets/Russians about 50 years to give back Eastern Europe and let it become independent. The United States had built up a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons with multiple reentry warheads with a slight advantage over the more numerous Soviet-Russian warheads in quality though the Soviets had more ICBMs overall. After the Helsinki Accords and S.A.L.T. tacks the United States continued on development of new weapons technology debatably flanking the A.B.M. treaty that limited anti-ballistic missile development to basically just Moscow and Washington D.C. (we should have selected Pittsburgh instead). That was a lot of force to apply to the Evil Empire to change its borders.

When the cold war ended with the Soviet Empire disappearing by a signature of Boris Yeltsin there was no lawful government following it up. There probably should have been some sort of conservatorship applied by an international power to secure integral Russian lands such as Ukraine and Crimea in order to plainly differentiate them from lands that formerly were independent powers and not part of the Soviet sphere of influence until 1945 or later. It is notable that the Soviet Union never formerly annexed those Warsaw Pact nations it had captured from the Nazis in 1944-45.

Plainly promulgating confusion and historical falsehood putting Ukraine and Crimea into the same political category as Poland and Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Czechoslovakia in order to justify the expropriation of formerly integral parts of Russia is disingenuous. With such ordinary ignorance of history in America and perhaps Europe of Russian history the inertial characteristic of incapability of viewing historically objectively-contemporary history included, is strong. That ignorance seriously damages western political veracity and competence in addressing real political issues that would find a righteous settlement to contentious issues, such as Ukraine.

Assuring Russian right to navigate the Dnepr River and have barge access from its heartland farmlands to the world is a basic, non-negotiable point. It is also well known that Britain has had a problem with Russia since Ivan the Terrible kicked out Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor after they sailed to Murmansk in the first British voyage around the Kola Peninsula. John Paul Jones worked for the Russian-not the British navy, after the American Revolutionary War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Chancellor

Muslim fundamentalism, Market fundamentalism and Socialist fundamentalism are all threats to democracy and free enterprise globally. Each ism seeks global power. Capitalism differs from democracy as royalty differs from Islam’s dar al Islam. Cessationism is another point to consider-I acknowledge it has good and bad connotations regardless of one’s opinion about it.

America’s Republican and Democrat parties are two sides of the coin of corporatism. Democrats take the queer, abortionist side of corporatism while Republicans are the military, fake conservative branch of corporatism. Neither are moral conservatives obviously, and the media including Rush Limbaugh fall into those two corporatist sects. Market fundamentalists are superficial and non-objective on historical reasoning while the Democrat branch thinks international relations are best accomplished with drone shots and queering things up.

 

Britain has for hundreds of years been involved with European land battles to expand markets. That is as natural as breathing for them. British interest in the Ukraine would be antipathetic to any Russian sovereignty over it. President Bill Clinton-an anglophile Rhodes Scholar who lived at Oxford with Hillary smoking dope but not inhaling, interacted substantially with Boris Yeltsin and in the year the U.S.A. was launching cruise missile and aircraft sorties on the former Yugoslavia got the weak Boris Yeltsin to sign away the Ukraine in a deal no subsequent Russian President would ever accept. It was a bridge to far-a part of Russia removed like it was a formerly independent nation of Eastern Europe that would be a bone of contention and a divisive wedge to destroy the peaceful development and trust between Russia and the West that would grow for decades. Allowing the wedge to develop, that rift to widen would harm the economy and security of the west for decades, especially as it could end the cooperation of Russia and the west in the battle to contain Muslin political expansion through terror-a fundamental component of the Mohammedan creed.