Trending
To the Editor:
Did you know that potentially more Russian soldiers have died in the battle for Bakmut in the Ukraine than we (U.S.) forces lost in the Korean Conflict?
Did you know that potentially more Russian soldiers have died in the first year of the Russian invasion of Ukraine than we lost during the entire Vietnam war?
Many people may be unaware of the gravity of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its toll on human life. How it has displaced millions of people, women and children and subjected millions more to the outright cruelty of the invader's. These facts are facts that support that the beacon of the light for the free world must always rise to support those who cannot basque in its light, due directly to the unlawful aggressive acts of the suppressor.
It is not an issue over territory any more than if the Russians were to claim Poland or East Germany or any other territory over which Russia "liberated" and then for almost a half of a century tightened its 'iron fist' around the cause of liberty and freedom. It is not a pro or anti Trump issue that dominates our political forefront. It is an issue of right or wrong.
Prime Minister Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler because, at first, it was just the Sudetenland and in the Nazi's mentality there was a legitimate claim.
Charles Lindbergh beseeched Americans, with the America First Committee, on April 23, 1941 he stated "…England is losing the war.." and concluded that "we cannot win this war for England, regardless of how much assistance we extend."
Unquestionably, history has taught us that Chamberlain and Lindbergh were wrong.
When we support Ukraine, we are not supporting a nation of our enemies or people of opposition to western ways and beliefs. To the contrary, the main reason this conflict exists is because the many peoples of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, want to be our allies. They share our beliefs. We are not funding people in the fight for freedom and democracy on the potential or possibility they may become our ally, they are our allies.
We have learned since the invasion of Crimea in 2014 that the ambitions of evil are fueled by evil's success and success equates to escalation and evil can only be repelled by good. Even in our modern world of revisionist history, Chamberlain and Lindberg are still remembered and remembered for being outright wrong.
The moral principles of what represents the United States of America alone is sufficient to gain your support to Stand with Ukraine. However, many people do not know the legal reasoning for our government's financial support of the people of the Ukraine.
Upon the fall of the USSR "the Ukraine" became the third largest possessor of Nuclear weapons in the world. Much if not most of the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal was in the Ukraine. The Ukraine people did not want to possess any nuclear weapons but concerned about Russia's future ambitions, wanted to insure its independence and sovereignty were respected. The superpowers of the world quickly responded and the U.S. and the United Kingdom offered to the Ukraine that if it gave up its newly acquired nuclear arsenal, the U.S. and the United Kingdom would give their respective "assurance" that if Russia would attempt to contradict the sovereignty of the Ukraine or invade the borders between the Ukraine and Russia as of December 1994, the time of what has become known as the 'Budapest Memorandum' was agreed upon by the U.S. and the United Kingdom.
I suggest that in 1994, when the Ukrainian government agreed to give up all of its nuclear weapons in complete reliance on our assurance and the United Kingdom's assurance to defend Ukraine in the event the Russians invaded, that the Ukrainians believed assurance meant boots on the ground not financial aid or the supply of weapons and ammunition. However, we have all learned that the difference between our 'guarantee' and 'assurance' is whether the U.S. military is directly involved. And what has transpired as a result of this interpretation?
Crimea is the modern equivalent to the Sudetenland. Applying the lesson of history, why would we choose not to honor our obligation?
What happened to the German civilians who lived in Königsberg or must we say Kaliningrad?
Should we wait until Poland is annexed? East Germany is annexed?
We should honor our commitment and support of those who want to defend themselves from tyranny.
Donald Zagurskie
Mifflintown