E-mail to our 234 Members inviting them to join this Working Group

[johnkarls]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Your Invitation to join our new Working Group on Ukraine’s 12/5/1994 Guaranty From America Of Its Independence AND Territorial Integrity If It Gave Up Its 1,900 Multiple-Warhead Nuclear Missiles
Date: Friday, November 15, 2024
To: To Each of Our 234 Members One-By-One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Each of Our 234 Members One-By-One – for reasons explained in the 4 postings in Sec. 2 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org.


Dear Friends,

As many of you will recall and Sec. 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org states, we form Working Groups “whenever a particular policy issue (1) may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) may require long-term attention.”

A few historical facts –

(1) On 12/26/1991 the old Soviet Union dissolved as proclaimed in Declaration No. 142-H of the individual Soviet Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. That is, that all 14 Soviet Republics including Russia and Ukraine were thenceforth independent.

(2) The dissolution left Ukraine with 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles.

(3) Ukraine had its share of USSR nuclear scientists and its share USSR military nuclear-missile techies so 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.

(4) However, as a new “world citizen,” Ukraine signaled its willingness to surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program IF ITS INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY WERE GUARANTEED.

(5) On 12/5/1994, President Bill Clinton for the U.S., Prime Minister John Major for the U.K., and President Boris Yeltsin for Russia signed an agreement GUARANTEEING UKRAINE’S INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY if Ukraine would surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program.

(6) Ukraine immediately did so.

(7) On 2/24/2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

(8) Technically, the 12/5/1994 agreement described in No. 5 (often called “The Budapest Memorandum”) was not triggered unless the threatener of Ukraine’s independence OR territorial integrity ALSO threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

(9) Vis-à-vis the current war, Putin has long since threatened the use of nuclear weapons (albeit so-called “tactical nukes”).

**************************End of History Summary**************************

Obviously in light of President-Elect Trump’s Promise To End The Ukraine War Expeditiously, it is time for us --

(1) to ascertain how this could be done while honoring America’s (and Britain’s and Russia’s) guarantee of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity;

(2) to undertake as soon as possible whatever campaigns directed at national leaders are appropriate; and

(3) to remain vigilant vis-à-vis this issue and take whatever action may be appropriate in the future.

If you would like to volunteer for this new Working Group, please press Reply and type “I volunteer.”

Your friend,

John K.

PS -- To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."

[johnkarls]

.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: But
Date: 2024-11-16 05:36
From: HLS Classmate A
To: john@johnkarls.com

What about 2014?

Seems relevant.

Can’t participate in your group. But emails interesting

A
Sent from my iPhone


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: But
Date: 2024-11-16 09:38
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: HLS Classmate A


Dear (HLS Classmate A),

I agree that Obama only gave them blankets and pillows!!!

And took the attitude that IF YOU WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO SURRENDER YOUR 1,900 MULTIPLE-WARHEAD MISSILES FOR AN AMERICAN PROMISE, YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO BE A COUNTRY!!!

Would you take the same attitude to NATO that they don't deserve to be countries???

And we didn't even get a "quid" for the "quo" of the "privilege" of defending them!!!

But nice to hear from you anyway!!!

Good luck with Thanksgiving!!!

Your friend,

John

[johnkarls]

.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Re: HLS-67 – HLS Classmate B’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)
Date: 2024-11-16 09:48
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: HLS Classmate A


Dear (HLS Classmate A),

So why didn't you respond to the PPS of my Nov 10 e-mail to our weekly HLS zoom chat colleagues raising the issue of whether, since treaties can be revoked by any member at any time (unlike contracts), anyone had any comments on the possibility of applying the law of criminal fraud???

Starting with Bill Clinton who signed the Budapest Memorandum???

Your friend,

John


***************************************************************************
The following e-mails are in chronological order. My Nov 10 e-mail is the second item.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: HLS Classmate B
Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Opinion | I'm the only one who knows what went wrong with Harris's campaign - The Washington Post
To: HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator

[Redacted first name] — my thoughts for the day, which I am happy to have you share with the crew.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just discussing with my wife what Zelensky should communicate to Biden (who still has 2 months of Presidency) and to Trump (who will presumably take over in January, 2025). And that is:

1. Biden should do all he can to accelerate the delivery of appropriated funds and the promised military equipment to Ukraine before Trump takes over.

2. Biden and the other NATO countries should follow through with taking Russia's impounded money which is being held in Western banks and give it to Ukraine (BTW, we are talking about Billions of dollars).

3. Zelensky should communicate to Trump that if Trump continues to state that America will back out of its support for Ukraine and force Ukraine into a semi-capitulation (such as giving up the Donbas and Crimea), Ukraine will up the ante with Russia by bombing internal Russian facilities, including Moscow itself, and that it will use American - contributed matériel, with or without American (i.e. Trump) authorization. Arguably, what I am suggesting would be a form of blackmail against Trump, but the guy Is essentially promising to blackmail Ukraine into a surrender.

4. As for the North Korean troops which have been shipped into Russia to join the battle (and, depending upon whom you believe may have already done so), if America abandons Ukraine, Trump should be told that Ukrainian forces will directly attack North Korean troops wherever they may be located in Russia (including as far away from the Ukrainian battlefield as Siberia) and regardless of whether they may be presently engaged in combat.

The war in Ukraine is existential. Likewise, the war in the Middle East is existential. Israel understands this and - like it or not - is acting accordingly. We have supported, and apparently continue to support, Israel . I would like to think that the latter country is not worthy of our support because the antagonists are favored (Jewish) versus unfavored (Muslim) religious groups. The point is that we need to take a stand in favor of territorial integrity and rules-based international standards.

Trump doesn't get any of this because, as far as he is concerned, there are no international standards; everything is transactional. Trump doesn't understand anything but force, so Ukraine needs to talk to him in the only language he understands.

HLS Classmate B


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: HLS-67 – (HLS Classmate B)’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)
Date: 2024-11-10 17:39
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: john@johnkarls.com
Bcc: HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Participants
Attachments –
RL-j217-OfficialText-BudapestMemorandum-UnitedNations.pdf
RL-j317-Letter to the President of the European Union Re Ukraine.pdf
RL-j317-Letter to the Secretary General of NATO re Ukraine.pdf

[The first attachment is available for download at viewtopic.php?f=680&t=2162&sid=674f487d ... 3c7d5e6104. The second and third attachments are available for download at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2176&sid=a6607de49 ... 9be4278a79.]

Dear Friends,

(HLS Classmate B)’s comments on Ukraine address what Pres. Biden can do before leaving office, without mentioning why the U.S. should support Ukraine which is not widely appreciated.

Following the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine had 1,900 nuclear missiles and its share of Soviet nuclear scientists and, of course, its share of military personnel qualified to handle the missiles.

The so-called Budapest Memorandum (signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister John Major and Russian President Boris Yeltsin) guaranteed Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine surrendering its 1,900 nuclear missiles.

[BTW, Ukraine was the world’s THIRD-LARGEST nuclear power behind the U.S. and Russia, but ahead of China, the U.K., etc.]

A copy of the Budapest Memorandum is the first attachment to this e-mail.

The second and third attachments are 3/17/2022 letters to the E.U. President and NATO Secretary General from the non-partisan public-policy study/action organization of 234 attorneys/professors/etc. that I have facilitated for 19 years asking Europe to –

(1) re-activate its de-activated nuclear plants in order to minimize imports of Russian oil & gas;

(2) organize a secondary-boycott of Russian oil & gas to prevent Russia from selling to other countries its oil & gas that Europe would be boycotting; and

(3) immediately announce that Europe is re-activating its nuclear plants and organizing a secondary-boycott of Russian oil & gas since it is probably the only sanction that will impress Russian President Putin who presumably relishes the surge in world oil & gas prices since his invasion of Ukraine.

Yes, my organization didn’t act until 3/17/2022 (21 days after Russia invaded), but even with only 201 members at that time, it takes a while to organize.

BTW at our meeting we discussed, inter alia, why recipients of other guarantees (NATO, Japan, etc.) should believe that the U.S. would honor our obligations to them if we renege vis-à-vis Ukraine.

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls

PS – A condition of the Budapest Memorandum guarantees is that Ukraine be threatened with nukes, which Putin has long since done (albeit so-called tactical nukes).

PPS – One of the materials for my organization’s March 2022 meeting was an e-mail exchange with one of my group’s members in which I expounded on “The Ukraine Guarantee and Criminal Fraud” which is available at viewtopic.php?f=683&t=2175&sid=ebb3a510 ... 861307365a. Even if we don’t discuss Ukraine tomorrow I’d be very interested in whether, since international treaties are NOT binding, the U.S. has been guilty of criminal fraud vis-à-vis Ukraine. Feel free to respond to me directly.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: HLS-67 – (HLS Classmate B)’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)
Date: 2024-11-10 18:38
From: HLS Classmate B
To: john@johnkarls.com; HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator

John - Thank you for your comments. Although you don't put them in the context of my reference to the Ukrainian conflict being "existential " - except in your last paragraph about the potential effect of an abandonment of Ukraine upon our numerous mutual aid pacts- I take it that you agree that when it comes to international stability and peace we are at a crossroad.

What you add to the mix are the moral and legal reasons why we and the other participants in the Budapest Memorandum, in particular, should support Ukraine's territorial integrity. That is all well and good, but I believe that this just makes Ukraine a special case. I believe that territorial integrity/sanctity as a principle of world order should apply across the board. In other words, had it been that Ukraine had unilaterally attacked Russia, we should be supporting Russia.

Anyhow, I tend to be somewhat simplistic in my views of things.

Respectfully,

HLS Classmate B


-------- Original Message --------
From: john@johnkarls.com
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 11:45 AM
To: HLS Classmate B
Subject: Re: HLS-67 – (HLS Classmate B)’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)

Dear (HLS Classmate B),

Reur first paragraph, yes I agree we are at a crossroad.

Reur second paragraph, although I agree with your sentiments, don't they imply that we should be "the policeman of the world"?

Respectfully,

John Karls

PS - I don't know whether you pressed "Reply to All" but many correspondents do so thinking their e-mails will go to my Bcc's.


-------- Original Message --------
From: HLS Classmate B
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 1:50 APM
To: john@johnkarls.com
Cc: HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator
Subject: Re: HLS-67 – (HLS Classmate B)’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)

John - happy to engage.

No, we should not and can not be "the policeman for the world". However, we are a party to numerous multi-party mutual-aid agreements which make us and our partners "policemen for some part of the world".

NATO is one such agreement. Admittedly, Russia has not (yet) done something to a NATO partner which would invoke its mutual-aid obligations. However, your reference to the Budapest Memorandum provides clear legal rationale (assuming that "law" has any relevance to this discussion) which justifies our involvement in the Ukraine-Russian conflict and for our support for Ukraine.


-------- Original Message --------
From: john@johnkarls.com
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 5:22 PM
To: HLS Classmate B
Subject: Re: HLS-67 – (HLS Classmate B)’s Comments on Ukraine (circulated by HLS-Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chat Facilitator)

Dear (HLS Classmate B),

Thank you for your e-mail.

The PPS to my e-mail to the group was intended to provoke comments on whether, since treaties can be revoked by any member at any time (unlike contracts), anyone had any comments on the possibility of applying the law of criminal fraud.

Nevertheless, since you took the time to provide some views, I will comment.

Reur second paragraph, you are careful to say "RUSSIA has not (yet)..." I assume you were being careful because, of course, Afghanistan was a NATO Article 5 action.

Reur first paragraph, I am guessing that you do not mean "policemen for some part of the world" in a geographical sense since, so far as I am aware, our NATO et al. treaties pertain to mutual defense of treaty members.

For example, what would the NATO response have been if U.S. military forces had been attacked on 9/11 in Japan? Or, for that matter, in the Middle East as is actually happening today?

This is not to say that if U.S. military forces had been attacked on 9/11 in Japan, NATO countries would not have been free on an individual basis (vs. obligated) to help us.

Similarly, if Timbuktu were attacked by whomever, the U.S. and individual NATO countries would be free (but not obligated) to take action.

Does any of this make sense???

Respectfully submitted,

John