President Biden’s “Munich” Appeasement à la Neville Chamberlain’s 9/30/1938 “Munich”

[HLS Classmate]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: President Biden’s “Munich” Appeasement à la Neville Chamberlain’s 9/30/1938 “Munich”
From: HLS Classmate
Date: Fri, February 18, 2022 1:08 pm EST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

I was intrigued by your 1/30/2022 e-mail to “Recent Attendees of RL Meetings” which was the first part of the first so-called “reply” to the Original Proposal.

The title of both your 1/30/2022 e-mail and the first so-called “reply” was “Winston Churchill, Appeasement and The 1994 U.S. Guarantee of Ukraine’s Independence & Territory.”

Your 1/30/2022 e-mail opened with “This is a FIVE-ALARM FIRE!!!” and urged recipients to register their views with President Biden at www.whitehouse.gov/contact, selecting “Contact the President” from the pull-down menu for the first item in the contact form.

Your 1/30/2022 e-mail proceeded to say that you had just done so and that your message to Pres. Biden was –

“Re Ukraine & Taiwan, please provide as much support against Russian & Chinese aggression as possible INCLUDING USE OF OUR MILITARY IF NECESSARY.”

Were you serious about the use of the U.S. military? How would you have envisioned this happening? What did you believe the result would be?

Regards,

HLS Classmate



---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: President Biden’s “Munich” Appeasement à la Neville Chamberlain’s 9/30/1938 “Munich”
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, February 19, 2022 4:41 am MST
To: HLS Classmate
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear HLS Classmate,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Since you have also taught law school, I trust you can appreciate the ramifications of the 12/5/1994 written guarantee of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity signed by Pres. William J. Clinton for the U.S., Prime Minister John Major for the U.K., and President Boris N. Yeltsin for the Russian Federation – the text of which I posted an hour ago at viewtopic.php?f=680&t=2162&sid=055cd587 ... 7ec9376bcb.

(1) Paragraph (1) provides that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. “reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine….. to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

[NB: The “existing borders” were as of 1994, long before 2014 when Russia stole Crimea from Ukraine and occupied permanently Ukraine’s Donbas region in the east!!!]

(2) Paragraph (2) provides that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. “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 [sic – British spelling of “defense”] or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”

(3) Paragraph (4) provides that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. “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.

[Paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) do not bear on my following argument.]


**********
Analysis of the Guarantee

FIRST, Russia is once again (as in 2014) violating its Paragraph (1) obligation “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

SECOND, Russia is once again (as in 2014) violating its Paragraph (2) “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

[Putin’s claim that he is doing so “in self-defence” [sic – British spelling of “defense”] doesn’t pass “the laugh test”!!! After all, can anyone believe that a non-nuclear power would attack a nuclear power???]

THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, Paragraph (4) does NOT limit British and American action to “their commitment to seeking United Nations Security Council action”!!!

In other words, they can take whatever additional action they wish in order to honor their guarantee of “the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

And indeed, they have been doing so by sending lethal and other aid to Ukraine in recent weeks.


**********
Pres. Biden’s Decision To Rule Out American Military Involvement

It has become difficult to remember that Pres. Biden campaigned for the Presidency as the Great Unifier.

And foreign policy used to be a bi-partisan matter, particularly when national security was involved.

[NB: My argument in the Original Proposal (especially its sub-section labelled “A Tale of Four Nations” about how the treatment by Presidents Biden and Obama of countries that surrender their nuclear weapons (Ukraine and Libya) has convinced Iran and North Korea that they would have to be INSANE to do so).]

I believe it is fair to say that Putin has revived The Cold War with his current threat to invade Ukraine.

And digressing for a moment, you may not be aware that I served in the U.S. Navy 1967-1970 as an Unrestricted Line Officer - Surface (Ensign > Lieutenant (j.g.) > Lieutenant) with a Top-Secret Security Clearance with Cryptographic Access.

Such clearances and access were typical of Naval Commands with nuclear weapons because your Commanding Officer can NOT be awake and in command 24/7.

And if you are standing OOD watches and Communications watches, THERE MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH TIME TO AWAKEN YOUR C.O. IF THE ORDER COMES IN TO FIRE YOUR NUKES because, after all, you may be reduced to ashes before you can awaken him!!!

Enough already on the digression!!!

How would I have acted in Pres. Biden’s shoes???

When Putin began to threaten Ukraine again, I would immediately have consulted with the U.K. AND WITH CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS!!!

In an attempt to persuade the Brits that they should honor their 1994 guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by joining us in sending our military to defend Ukraine IF ASKED (which, presumably, Ukraine would want to do).

Meanwhile, as the Great Unifier, I would be willing to bet that Republicans would also support the use of our military in Ukraine in view of the national-security nuclear-proliferation threat and the national-security implications of a “weak kneed” response in Ukraine for China vis-à-vis Taiwan, Iran vis-à-vis belligerence throughout the Middle East, and North Korea’s recent firing/testing of its nuclear-capable missiles.

But what did the Great Unifier do???

He unilaterally announced that no U.S. military would be deployed to Ukraine.

Thereby poisoning any hope of bi-partisan support. After all, he was “painting into a corner” any Republicans who would have been willing to use our military in Ukraine, but did NOT want to be painted as hot-headed trigger-happy militarists!!!

What could the Great Unifier have accomplished???

FIRST, we will never know whether Biden could have persuaded Republicans to honor our guarantee to Ukraine by deploying our military to Ukraine IF ASKED.

SECOND, we will never know whether Biden could have persuaded the Brits to join us by HONORING THEIR GUARANTEE by deploying their military to Ukraine IF ASKED.

[After all, Britain was among the first to join us in Afghanistan following 9/11 when we invoked the NATO Treaty’s famous Article 5 (an attack on any NATO member is an attack on all). NB: I am NOT arguing that the British and American guarantees to Ukraine are a NATO matter – only that for more than a century, Britain and the U.S. have “seen eye to eye” on national-security issues.]

[However, it is true that Biden damaged our relationship with Britain (and other NATO members) who had answered the NATO Article 5 call to send troops to Afghanistan with Biden’s UNILATERAL ABANDONMENT OF THE MISSION WITHOUT EVEN CONSULTING THE NATO MEMBERS WHO HAD ANSWERED OUR NATO ARTICLE 5 CALL TO ACTION!!!]

THIRD, if American troops were sent to Ukraine IF ASKED, Putin would NOT have the gall to start a shooting war with the U.S. [And, presumably, a shooting war with NATO under Article 5 if Putin attacked American troops who were honoring America’s 1994 Guarantee to Ukraine!!!]

FOURTH, the foregoing judgment is the result of having taken Prof. Henry Kissinger’s “Nuclear Diplomacy” seminar while we were in law school and, ever since, having read everything Kissinger ever wrote that became publicly available and analyzed all of his actions as National Security Adviser & Secretary of State during the course of which he engineered the 1972 "Opening to China” which drove a wedge between the Soviet Union and China.

[For more details about my bona fides as a Kissinger disciple on “Nuclear Diplomacy,” please see the voluminous materials comprising the Expired Topic Proposal entitled “Kissinger The Negotiator - Lessons From Dealmaking” relating to the 5/9/2018 NYC Harvard Club presentation by Harvard Law School Prof. Robert Mnookin and Harvard Business School Prof. Jim Sibenius on the then-new book of the same title that they had co-authored with Prof. Nick Burns of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government – which voluminous materials are available at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=1737&sid=712f6409 ... 85cdcbb36a.]


*****
Thank you again for your e-mail.

I know if you have any follow-up questions/comments, you are not shy.

Sincerely,

John K.

[HLS Classmate]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: President Biden’s “Munich” Appeasement à la Neville Chamberlain’s 9/30/1938 “Munich”
From: HLS Classmate
Date: Thu, February 24, 2022 7:49 pm EST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

I see you incorporated our e-mail exchange of a week ago on the referenced subject ver batim in this month’s short quiz.

What do you make of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (and other Ukrainian officials) saying that they did NOT request American military personnel.

In this regard, it is noted that in your e-mail of a week ago, you twice said – “…..sending our military to defend Ukraine IF ASKED (which, presumably, UKRAINE WOULD WANT TO DO).” [All-caps emphasis added.]

Regards,

HLS Classmate



---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: President Biden’s “Munich” Appeasement à la Neville Chamberlain’s 9/30/1938 “Munich”
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, February 25, 2022 7:02 am MST
To: HLS Classmate
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear HLS Classmate,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I assume you have posed a rhetorical question whose obvious answer you would like to post on our website.

Obviously, the American government made clear to President Zelenskyy and his colleagues that if they said publicly that they had requested American military personnel (which, presumably, they did), there “would be hell to pay.”

After all, they have been unable to pry out of the Biden Administration as many anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as they need!!! And they couldn’t risk NOT receiving the trickle that had been occurring!!!

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Sincerely,

John K.