The Ukraine Guarantee and Criminal Fraud

[johnkarls]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: The Ukraine Guarantee and Criminal Fraud
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, March 13, 2022
To: [Name Redacted]
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear [Name Redacted],

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

It addressed our oft-repeated statement that America’s 1994 written and signed guarantee of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine surrendering its 1,900 nuclear missiles IS A HIGHER MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION THAN OUR NATO OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE (1) we did NOT dupe any NATO countries into surrendering the means to defend themselves, and (2) many (if not most) of the NATO countries do NOT spend 2% of their GDP on defense which is the minimum requirement for receiving our protection.

You questioned whether America’s 1994 guarantee of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity is legally binding since (unlike consequences for breaching a contract) under international law, treaties can be renounced at any time with no consequences.


**********
Treaties & International Law

As long-since conceded in our meeting materials, a treaty is NOT like a contract because as soon as a party to a treaty renounces it, it vanishes and there are no legal consequences for renouncing it like there would be for breaching a contract.

But that is NOT the only legal consideration.


**********
The Ukraine Guarantee and Criminal Fraud

Fraud around the world can be defined, in general, as --

(1) intentionally misleading a victim;

(2) reliance by the victim on the misinformation; and

(3) the victim suffers harm as a result.

It is easy to see the basis for this in common-law countries (the U.S., Britain and most of the old British Empire) --

(1) Until Henry VIII severed the relationship between the English Church and The Vatican, there were no temporal courts – only ecclesiastical courts dispensing Biblical justice (just like many countries still have only Islamic-law courts).

(2) In Biblical law, Criminal Fraud would violate quite a few Old Testament laws, such as one of the two that became The New Covenant – to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18 in Mosaic Law). When Christ says (Luke 10:25-27) that loving your neighbor as yourself is the second of TWO requirements “for inheriting eternal life,” He immediately includes the Story of the Good Samaritan to drive home the point that EVERY HUMAN BEING IS YOUR NEIGHBOR.

(3) Now consider all of the facts mentioned in our website materials that would be introduced into evidence in a court of law --

(A) The Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 (aka The Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991) named after Sen. San Nunn (D-GA and long-time Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN and long-time Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) – provided financing and expertise to dismantle nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Socialist Republics.

(B) By way of background, the USSR was bankrupt and, for example, its military serving in occupied Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.) were selling their weapons (including the notorious 132 suitcase-size nukes, 84 of which have never been recovered) in order to avoid starvation because the USSR couldn’t afford to pay them.

(C) On 12/26/1991, the leaders of the three largest “Soviet Socialist Republics” – Russia, Ukraine and Belarus – declared that the USSR (aka Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer existed and the remaining 11 “Soviet Socialist Republics” joined them shortly thereafter in recognizing that all of the SSR’s were now independent.

(D) The dissolution left Ukraine with 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles. Ukraine had had its share of USSR nuclear scientists and the USSR military had contained enough Ukrainian nuclear-missile techies that Ukraine would have had no trouble in remaining the world’s THIRD-largest nuclear power – behind the U.S. and Russia BUT AHEAD OF Britain, France, China, etc.

(E) I AM ASSUMING that the diplomatic pressure from the U.S. on Ukraine to surrender their nukes WAS IMMENSE BECAUSE OF THE NUNN-LUGAR ACT which had been signed into law on 12/12/1991, a mere 14 days before the dissolution of the USSR.

(F) Give the Ukrainians credit – before they agreed to surrender their nukes THREE YEARS LATER on 12/5/1994, they had obtained a written guarantee of their independence and territorial integrity signed by U.S. President William J. Clinton, British Prime Minister John Major, and Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

(G) While not prohibiting additional action, the 12/5/1994 Guarantee technically only obligated the U.S., Britain and Russia to respect Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity and to seek U.N. Security Council action if “Ukraine should become…..an object of A THREAT of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”

(H) There is no question that Ukraine has once again become the victim of Russian aggression – and I would argue that at least this time, the “threat” of nukes is satisfied because Putin will not hesitate to use tactical nukes if they prove necessary for his relatively-puny forces to destroy Ukraine’s will to fight.

(I) So how was Ukraine defrauded by our diplomats???

(I-1) NB that the U.N. Security Council has unleased numerous military actions in the past, the most famous of which was the Korean War in which, technically, North Korea is STILL AT WAR with the United Nations!!! [The USSR boycotted the Security Council discussions re Korea and “Taiwan” was still “China” at that time and, to this day, there is ONLY A “CEASE FIRE” between North Korea and the U.N.]

(I-2) NB that there are ONLY FIVE permanent Security Council members, each of which has a veto power and each of which was one of the World War II winning allies – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China.

(I-3) You “can bet your bottom dollar” that our diplomats, in applying irresistible pressure on Ukraine for 3 years, argued – “What’s to worry about re UN Security Council action IAW the guarantee – three of the five “king pins” (the U.S., Britain and Russia) are already signing the guarantee and there is no reason to think that France or China would attack you and veto Security Council action!!!”

(I-4) From Ukraine’s perspective, the U.S., Britain and Russia might even be viewed as vouching for each other.

(J) So based on Putin’s record of utterly destroying Chechnya (which he was able TO LEVEL without tactical nukes), can you really argue with a straight face that Putin will NOT use tactical nukes, if necessary, to subjugate Ukraine??? Indeed, Putin keeps talking about nukes in the wake of his current invasion of Ukraine!!!

(K) And can you really argue with a straight face that Ukraine was NOT almost certainly CRIMINALLY DEFRAUDED by U.S. diplomats into believing that the U.N. Security Council would NOT have LONG SINCE intervened against Putin’s current invasion???


**********
Please feel free, of course, to respond. My views are only based on my judgment of what would be proved in a court of law if Ukraine had time to sue the U.S. And from having taught international law part time for NYU School of Law.

Sincerely,

John Karls
JD, Harvard Law School, 1967
Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in The World, 1994-2003