Monterey Bay Aquarium
Show & Tell
h

Kiana Khansmith
NASA
tumblr dot com
Sade Olutola

ellievsbear

No title available

Origami Around
trying on a metaphor
hello vonnie

No title available
styofa doing anything
sheepfilms
YOU ARE THE REASON
KIROKAZE
Today's Document

titsay

JBB: An Artblog!
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Iraq

seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Poland
@eurasiafactbook
Caspian Sea
Caspian Sea, Russian Kaspiyskoye More, Persian Darya-ye Khezer, world’s largest inland body of water. It lies to the east of the Caucasus Mountains and to the west of the vast steppe of Central Asia. The sea’s name derives from the ancient Kaspi peoples, who once lived in Transcaucasia to the west. The elongated sea sprawls for nearly 750 miles (1,200 km) from north to south. The sea is bordered in the northeast by Kazakhstan, in the southeast by Turkmenistan, in the south by Iran, in the southwest by Azerbaijan , and in the northwest by Russia.
The Caspian is the largest salt lake in the world, but that has not always been true. Scientific studies have shown that until relatively recent geologic times, approximately 11 million years ago, it was linked, via the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, to the world ocean. The Caspian is of exceptional scientific interest, because its history—particularly former fluctuations in both area and depth—offers clues to the complex geologic and climatic evolution of the region. Human-made changes, notably those resulting from the construction of dams, reservoirs, and canals on the immense Volga River system (which drains into the Caspian from the north), have affected the contemporary hydrologic balance. Caspian shipping and fisheries play an important role in the region’s economy, as does the production of petroleum and natural gas in the Caspian basin. The sea’s splendid sandy beaches also serve as health and recreation resorts.
Marine life
About 850 animal and more than 500 plant species live in the Caspian. Although the number of species is relatively low for a body of water of that size, many of them are endemic (i.e., found only there). Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) and diatoms constitute the greatest biomass concentrations, and there are several species of red and brown algae. Animal life—which has been affected greatly by changes in salinity—includes fish species such as sturgeon, herring, pike, perch, and sprat; several species of mollusks; and a variety of other organisms including sponges. Some 15 species of Arctic (e.g., the Caspian seal) and Mediterranean types complement the basic fauna. Some organisms have migrated to the Caspian relatively recently: barnacles, crabs, and clams, for example, have been transported by sea vessels, while gray mullets have been deliberately introduced by humans.
Economy
The Caspian long has been famous for its sturgeon, a fish prized for its caviar. The seal industry also has been developed in northern regions mainly for furs.
Petroleum and natural gas have become the region’s most important resources. Exploitation began in the 1920s and expanded considerably after World War II and continued to do so into the 21st century. Seabed oil is extracted using drilling platforms and artificial islands. The most-promising reserves lie under the northeastern Caspian and its adjacent shores. Minerals such as sodium sulfate, extracted from the Kara-Bogaz-Gol, also have considerable economic importance.
Transportation
The Caspian plays an important role in the region’s transportation: petroleum, wood, grain, cotton, rice, and sulfate are the basic goods carried, while Astrakhan and Makhachkala in Russia, Baku in Azerbaijan, Bandar-e Anzalī in Iran, Türkmenbashi in Turkmenistan, and Aqtaū in Kazakhstan are the most important ports. They are also connected by regular passenger runs, while railway stock is directly ferried, without unloading, between Baku and Türkmenbashi. During the late 1990s the several Caspian countries concluded agreements with petroleum companies to build new pipelines to bring the region’s oil and natural gas to market. One of those, an oil pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan, Turkey, on the Mediterranean coast, opened in 2005. Another project, a trans-Caspian pipeline, would transport Turkmeni natural gas beneath the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday recognized the independence of Moscow-backed rebel regions in eastern Ukraine. Here is a look at
Russia has officially recognised the independence of rebel regions in eastern Ukraine. How will the West respond?
The nature of my work often requires me to enter war zones.
Russia opted not to discourage the escalation of Nagorno-Karabakh smoldering conflict into a full-fledged war. There are strong signs that t
Russian forces fired missiles at several Ukrainian cities and landed troops on its south coast on Thursday, right after Russian President Vl
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said recently that he'd like to ask US President Joe Biden, "Why is Ukraine still not in NATO?" Ukra
In recent years, Russia has combined military operations with disinformation campaigns that are designed to justify its aggressive actions. A key theme has been the idea of a fundamentally defensive Russia forced to protect its borders from “NATO expansion.” This entire narrative is based on long-debunked claims of a “pledge” made by the West to the Soviet Union not to expand NATO eastwards following the fall of the Berlin Wall. According to the Russian version of events, US Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not move east if the USSR allowed the reunification of East and West Germany. Archive documents prove that no such pledge was ever made. Even Gorbachev himself stated in October 2014 that the topic was not discussed at the time. This makes sense. In early 1990, nobody would have considered the possibility of any Warsaw Pact countries even theoretically aspiring to NATO membership. Instead, the only discussions on NATO enlargement referred specifically to East Germany. This somewhat primitive yet entirely characteristic deception has allowed Moscow to promote the myth of a duplicitous and expansionist NATO. Meanwhile, Russia is conveniently cast in the role of victim, forced to protect itself by occupying the lands of its neighbors. Unfortunately, many people around the world continue to be taken in by this hoax.
The Russians may yet conquer Ukraine. But Ukrainians have shown that they will not let them hold it, says historian and author Yuval Noah Ha
Russia - CIA factbook
Introduction
Founded in the 12th century, the Principality of Muscovy was able to emerge from over 200 years of Mongol domination (13th-15th centuries) and to gradually conquer and absorb surrounding principalities. In the early 17th century, a new ROMANOV Dynasty continued this policy of expansion across Siberia to the Pacific. Under PETER I (ruled 1682-1725), hegemony was extended to the Baltic Sea and the country was renamed the Russian Empire. During the 19th century, more territorial acquisitions were made in Europe and Asia. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 contributed to the Revolution of 1905, which resulted in the formation of a parliament and other reforms. Devastating defeats and food shortages in World War I led to widespread rioting in the major cities of the Russian Empire and to the overthrow in 1917 of the ROMANOV Dynasty. The communists under Vladimir LENIN seized power soon after and formed the USSR. The brutal rule of Iosif STALIN (1928-53) strengthened communist rule and Russian dominance of the Soviet Union at a cost of tens of millions of lives.
After defeating Germany in World War II as part of an alliance with the US (1939-1945), the USSR expanded its territory and influence in Eastern Europe and emerged as a global power. The USSR was the principal adversary of the US during the Cold War (1947-1991). The Soviet economy and society stagnated in the decades following Stalin's rule, until General Secretary Mikhail GORBACHEV (1985-91) introduced glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in an attempt to modernize communism, but his initiatives inadvertently released forces that by December 1991 led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and 14 other independent states.
Following economic and political turmoil during President Boris YELTSIN's term (1991-99), Russia shifted toward a centralized authoritarian state under President Vladimir PUTIN (2000-2008, 2012-present) in which the regime seeks to legitimize its rule through managed elections, populist appeals, a foreign policy focused on enhancing the country's geopolitical influence, and commodity-based economic growth. Russia faces a largely subdued rebel movement in Chechnya and some other surrounding regions, although violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus.
People and Society
Population: 142,320,790 (July 2021 est.)
Nationality: Russian(s)
Ethnic groups: Russian 77.7%, Tatar 3.7%, Ukrainian 1.4%, Bashkir 1.1%, Chuvash 1%, Chechen 1%, other 10.2%, unspecified 3.9% (2010 est.) note: nearly 200 national and/or ethnic groups are represented in Russia's 2010 census
Languages: Russian (official) 85.7%, Tatar 3.2%, Chechen 1%, other 10.1%; note - data represent native language spoken (2010 est.) major-language sample(s): Книга фактов о мире – незаменимый источник базовой информации. (Russian)
Religions: Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.) note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of official atheism under Soviet rule; Russia officially recognizes Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism as the country's traditional religions
The West can’t treat Putin like he’s Saddam Hussein.
Ukraine - CIA factbook
Introduction
Background
Ukraine was the center of the first eastern Slavic state, Kyivan Rus, which during the 10th and 11th centuries was the largest and most powerful state in Europe. Weakened by internecine quarrels and Mongol invasions, Kyivan Rus was incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and eventually into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The cultural and religious legacy of Kyivan Rus laid the foundation for Ukrainian nationalism through subsequent centuries.
Administering justice in Kievan Rus, by Ivan Bilibin. Source: http://www.vnikitskom.ru/antique/auction/80/34853/
A new Ukrainian state, the Cossack Hetmanate, was established during the mid-17th century after an uprising against the Poles. Despite continuous Muscovite pressure, the Hetmanate managed to remain autonomous for well over 100 years. During the latter part of the 18th century, most Ukrainian ethnographic territory was absorbed by the Russian Empire. Following the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, Ukraine achieved a short-lived period of independence (1917-20), but was reconquered and endured a brutal Soviet rule that engineered two forced famines (1921-22 and 1932-33) in which over 8 million died.
Holodomor, man-made famine that convulsed the Soviet republic of Ukraine from 1932 to 1933, peaking in the late spring of 1933. It was part of a broader Soviet famine (1931–34) that also caused mass starvation in the grain-growing regions of Soviet Russia and Kazakhstan. Photos: https://ukrainer.net/common-lies-about-the-holodomor/
In World War II, German and Soviet armies were responsible for 7 to 8 million more deaths. Although Ukraine achieved independence in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, democracy and prosperity remained elusive as the legacy of state control and endemic corruption stalled efforts at economic reform, privatization, and civil liberties.
A peaceful mass protest referred to as the "Orange Revolution" in the closing months of 2004 forced the authorities to overturn a rigged presidential election and to allow a new internationally monitored vote that swept into power a reformist slate under Viktor YUSHCHENKO. Subsequent internal squabbles in the YUSHCHENKO camp allowed his rival Viktor YANUKOVYCH to stage a comeback in parliamentary (Rada) elections, become prime minister in August 2006, and be elected president in February 2010. In October 2012, Ukraine held Rada elections, widely criticized by Western observers as flawed due to use of government resources to favor ruling party candidates, interference with media access, and harassment of opposition candidates. President YANUKOVYCH's backtracking on a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU in November 2013 - in favor of closer economic ties with Russia - and subsequent use of force against students, civil society activists, and other civilians in favor of the agreement led to a three-month protest occupation of Kyiv's central square. The government's use of violence to break up the protest camp in February 2014 led to all out pitched battles, scores of deaths, international condemnation, a failed political deal, and the president's abrupt departure for Russia. New elections in the spring allowed pro-West president Petro POROSHENKO to assume office in June 2014; he was succeeded by Volodymyr ZELENSKY in May 2019.
Shortly after YANUKOVYCH's departure in late February 2014, Russian President PUTIN ordered the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula falsely claiming the action was to protect ethnic Russians living there. Two weeks later, a "referendum" was held regarding the integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation. The "referendum" was condemned as illegitimate by the Ukrainian Government, the EU, the US, and the UN General Assembly (UNGA). In response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, 100 members of the UN passed UNGA resolution 68/262, rejecting the "referendum" as baseless and invalid and confirming the sovereignty, political independence, unity, and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
In mid-2014, Russia began supplying proxies in two of Ukraine's eastern provinces with manpower, funding, and materiel driving an armed conflict with the Ukrainian Government that continues to this day. Representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the unrecognized Russian proxy republics signed the Minsk Protocol and Memorandum in September 2014 to end the conflict. However, this agreement failed to stop the fighting or find a political solution. In a renewed attempt to alleviate ongoing clashes, leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany negotiated a follow-on Package of Measures in February 2015 to implement the Minsk agreements. Representatives from Ukraine, Russia, the unrecognized Russian proxy republics, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe also meet regularly to facilitate implementation of the peace deal. More than 14,000 civilians have been killed or wounded as a result of the Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Geography
Location
Eastern Europe, bordering the Black Sea, between Poland, Romania, and Moldova in the west and Russia in the east
Area
total: 603,550 sq km land: 579,330 sq km water: 24,220 sq km note: approximately 43,133 sq km, or about 7.1% of Ukraine's area, is Russian occupied; the seized area includes all of Crimea and about one-third of both Luhans'k and Donets'k oblasts
country comparison to the world: 48
Land boundaries
border countries (7): Belarus 1111 km, Hungary 128 km, Moldova 1202 km, Poland 498 km, Romania 601 km, Russia 1944 km, Slovakia 97 km
For one city in the Ukraine, the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 was an act of creation. Find out how the nuclear disaster gave birth to Slavutych and what a traveler will find there today.
Russian forces now control Chernobyl, inviting speculation and uncertainty
By Susan D’Agostino for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | February 25, 2022
Yesterday, Russian forces seized control of the defunct Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the still-radioactive site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster. The plant, along with the approximately 1,000-square mile radius around it known as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, supports ongoing work focused on nuclear waste management and storage. The takeover was part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s multi-pronged assault on Ukraine, which began on Thursday.
Though the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations watchdog, reported that there have been “no casualties nor destruction” at Chernobyl, experts and the public are now at work attempting to understand the potential risks posed by the takeover. While some offer measured responses concerning the potential for human and ecological disaster, others express alarm. Many posit theories for why Russia sought to seize control of Chernobyl, including using the site as a base, for a potential act of terrorism, or for the symbolic “win” it may represent.
Igor Konashenkov, a spokesperson for Russian Military of Defense, said in a statement that the Ukrainian staff “continues to service the facilities in a routine mode and monitor the radioactive situation.” Konashenkov did not indicate that Russian soldiers were holding the workers hostage, as Kateryna Pavlova, Chernobyl’s Head of the Department for International Cooperation and Public Relations, told the Bulletin yesterday.
“The most dangerous part is that we lost control,” Pavlova said. “Some part of the staff from Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and National Guard have been kidnapped. They can’t connect. They can’t report.”
White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, later expressed similar concern: “This unlawful and dangerous hostage-taking, which could upend the routine civil service efforts required to maintain and protect the nuclear waste facilities, is obviously incredibly alarming. We condemn it, and we request their release.”
Yet this morning, the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine reported that radiation levels in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone were “exceeded at a significant number of observation points” since Russian forces assumed control. The Ukrainian regulatory body attributed the excessive levels to the “disturbance of the top layer of soil from movement of a large number of radio heavy military” and an “increase of air pollution.”
“But now it is currently impossible to establish the reasons for the change in the radiation background in the exclusion zone because of the occupation and military fight in this territory,” the agency’s website said.
A Russian defense ministry official has disputed the claim of excessive radiation levels.
“It is impossible to say that the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is safe after a totally pointless attack by the Russians,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential office told Reuters. “This is one of the most serious threats in Europe today.”
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi also expressed “grave concern” and appealed for “maximum restraint to avoid any action that may put the country’s nuclear facilities at risk.”
Chernobyl sits along a short path from the Russia-Ukraine border to Ukraine’s capital. Pavlova, who described the takeover as a “psychological and humanitarian disaster,” notes that Chernobyl’s facilities and location might have been part of the allure. “We have houses where they can stay and leave. It could be their base,” Pavlova said. “It’s very close to Kyiv—only 140 kilometers. The airport is also nearby. It’s a very good location to bring their troops.”
The stricken reactor has been entombed in a sarcophagus—a steel and concrete coffin-like structure—since 1986. In 2016, another structure—known as New Safe Confinement, which is “strong enough to withstand a tornado” and designed to last 100 years, according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—was placed over the sarcophagus. The New Safe Confinement was funded by more than 30 countries at a cost of $1.5 billion.
Still, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the Russian takeover “may cause another ecological disaster” and that if the war continues, Chernobyl “can happen again in 2022.”
Others were less concerned. “[T]he bigger risk comes from the potential for fighting around Ukraine’s four active nuclear power plants, which contain 15 separate reactors and generated over half the country’s electricity in 2020,” James M. Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a post.
Mikhail Gorbachev once suggested that Chernobyl “was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.” For this reason, its seizure could be viewed as a “symbolic win,” Taras Kuzio, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, told the BBC.
Despite divergent early takes on the potential risks of this unfolding situation, Pavlova, who once served as Acting Head of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone during a time when wildfires were rampant, is alarmed. “Not so many people understand how dangerous nuclear power plants are in the case of war,” Pavlova said. “I want the world to know that we are one little step—a few millimeters—from destroying our world.”
The Far Right is Using the Ukraine Crisis to Cement Its Power
Militant ethnonationalists have smelled blood.
by Volodya Vagner for novaramedia.com, 22 February 2022
The geopolitical situation in Ukraine has been tense for months. Since last spring, Russia has sent 150,000 troops to Ukraine’s borders and last night, ordered some of them into two eastern regions. While the Ukrainian leadership has been sceptical about these doomsday predictions, criticising the western media’s fear-mongering, it has also stated that the country is ready for any eventuality.
The tensions have already destabilised Ukraine’s economy, and any further escalation is sure to do more damage – not to mention the potentially catastrophic loss of life. Yet for the Ukrainian far right, the current crisis is a massive opportunity.
Michael Colborne is a Canadian journalist who has lived in Ukraine and the author of a forthcoming book about Azov, the country’s most powerful far-right movement. Speaking to Novara Media, he says: “The far right and particularly the Azov movement are trying to take advantage of the current situation.”
A soldier of the Azov Battalion with a heavy machine gun. Source: Carl Ridderstråle.
One aspect of the group’s strategy which has received significant international media coverage are its civil defence trainings. These events, which usually span a few hours, involve Azov instructors showing civilians how to resist a potential ground invasion: handling weapons, taking cover, tactical medicine and so on.
The Azov movement was born in 2014 during the outbreak of the war in eastern Ukraine in order to fight Russian-backed rebels. Then a volunteer regiment, today Azov is part of Ukraine’s National Guard and part of a broad movement comprising a political party, civilian militia, publishing house, social centres, martial arts clubs and youth camps. While the movement tries to deny the violence or extremism of its ethnonationalist ideology, its leader has previously described Ukraine’s mission as “leading the world’s white nations in their last crusade, against semite-lead subhumanity.”
Electorally, however, the movement is marginal. When its political wing joined forces with several other far-right parties to participate in Ukraine’s most recent parliamentary elections in 2019, the bloc drew barely more than 2% of the vote. Yet Azov has friends in high places, particularly the Ukrainian security apparatus: the country’s long-serving interior minister, Arsen Avakov, who resigned last summer, is considered by experts a patron of the movement; a former Azov commander was until three months ago deputy chair of the national police. The current crisis could cement their position.
The civil defence trainings are nothing new, but something the far right has been engaged in since the war in 2014. In recent weeks, however, their frequency has increased, as part of an Azov campaign whose motto is “Don’t panic – prepare yourselves!” Since launching in early February, the campaign’s Telegram channel has announced trainings in over 20 Ukrainian cities.
How many participants come from the far right is hard to tell, says Colborne. While some certainly do, “others are pretty ordinary members of the public, who probably know Azov the regiment and either don’t know about its far-right nature or simply don’t care because their priority is to defend the country.”
“And that’s why, I think, what they’re doing now is clever, because they’re positioning themselves as – within the context of Ukraine right now – normal actors who have the best interests of the country in mind. As a strong no-nonsense, non-extreme movement that can step in where Ukraine’s failed politicians can’t.”
The influence of the Ukrainian far right is hotly contested among observers. While Russia’s propaganda machine likes to exaggerate it, Western media coverage often tends to understate it so as to avoid regurgitating Kremlin talking points. As a result, international coverage of Azov’s civil defence trainings has tended to describe them more as a manifestation of ordinary Ukranians acting in self-defence than as an example of Azov’s political strategy.
Yet the popular appeal of the trainings may be overstated. Videos posted to Azov’s social media show one Kiev training with several hundred participants, while another post boasts that “[m]edia from the whole world are writing about our campaign!” Yet this media coverage often focuses on the same few events and participants. “Western journalists have occupied all hotel rooms since January, waiting for the promised ‘imminent invasion’,” says Ukrainian sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko, who has researched the country’s far right. “Now, they need to produce stories about the war.”
“Reporting that most people don’t believe in it, aren’t withdrawing money from their bank accounts or emptying supermarkets,” Ishchenko adds, “is not interesting. Marginal civil defence trainings play much better with the expected narrative.” By his estimation, patriotic marches organised by far-right groups have also seen relatively poor turnout.
To what degree Azov will be able to convert the current crisis into political capital is hard to predict, says Colborne. They’ve certainly failed to before: “In 2020 they also tried to take advantage of the pandemic by presenting their own volunteer corps as this helpful patriotic force, ready to step in when the government couldn’t.”
“But they dismissed that within a few months, because, I think, they realised that, despite the relative cost, they weren’t getting anything out of it in terms of improving their brand.”
The movement’s concern over its image probably also means that far-right volunteers from abroad won’t play as key a role in Azov as they did in the early phase of the war. When the conflict broke out in 2014, neo-Nazis from across Europe flocked to Ukraine to join both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. The presence of far-right fighters from abroad has been costly for Azov’s reputation. “Whereas in 2014 they were actively recruiting foreign help, this time they’re actively rejecting it,” says Colborne. According to him, the main determinant in Azov’s fate is whether Russia escalates.
“If there is renewed fighting in Donbas and the Azov regiment takes part in battle, shows itself defending the country, fights well and takes casualties, then, like in 2014, that would help to further improve their status in Ukrainian society.” War, after all, is what created the Azov movement: “Further war … would be an opportunity for them to be reborn.”
Volodya Vagner is a freelance journalist based in Sweden, covering culture and politics.
Ukraine’s nuclear regret: A look back at when and why Kyiv gave up its arsenal
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, thousands of nuclear arms, about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, were left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow.
FP Staff, February 24, 2022 20:25:39 IST, by Firstpost.com
President Clinton (left), Russian President Boris Yeltsin (center), and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk (right) sign the trilateral agreement for the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine at the Kremlin, Moscow, January 12th, 1994. Photo Credit: Wojtek Laski via Getty Images.
As Russia initiated a military operation against Ukraine on Thursday, the notes of regret couldn’t be missed in the voice of Ukrainian MP Alexey Goncharenko as he recalled how his country gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and the US.
“Ukraine is the only nation in the human history which gave up the nuclear arsenal, the third biggest in the world in 1994, with guarantees of the US, UK and Russian Federation. Where are these guarantees? Now we are bombed and killed,” Goncharenko said while talking to Fox News.
Ukraine’s former defence minister Anriy Zahorodniuk also expressed regret at denuclearisation.
“We gave away the capability for nothing,” Zahorodniuk told The New York Times.
Why did the country with the “third biggest” nuclear arsenal in the world give it all up? What were the security guarantees from Russia and the US?
Nuclear missile SS-18 Satan fully designed and manufactured in Ukraine at Yuzhmash. Source: ISC Kosmotras.
Let’s take a look back:
Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal
Once the second most powerful republic in the Soviet Union (USSR), Ukraine voted for independence on 1 December, 1991. With independence came the tag of being the third-largest nuclear power in the world, but only briefly.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, thousands of nuclear arms, about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, were left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow.
According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Ukraine had approximately 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons that are meant to hit large military facilities, naval fleets and armoured formations, and 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons that are meant to destroy cities.
Despite having the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the authority to use the centralised firing control of these weapons remained in Moscow.
Ukraine’s denuclearisation under Budapest Memorandum
Extensive negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the US led to an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum.
As per the agreement, Ukraine agreed to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems such as bombers and missiles with financial assistance from the West.
Ukraine agreed to its accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon State.
The agreement assured Ukraine that Russia, US and UK would refrain from threatening it and respect its “independence and sovereignty and the existing borders”.
The six paragraph-agreement also assured Ukraine that the other three signatories will “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 or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.
It said that all the three signatories will not use economic coercion against Ukraine to secure advantages of any kind.
The three countries agreed to seek immediate action from the United Nations Security Council to provide assistance to Ukraine if it becomes “the victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
The countries committed to not use nuclear weapons “against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State”.
All the four parties in the Budapest Memorandum agreed to consult “in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments”.
Russia’s violation of Budapest Memorandum
Russian takeover of Crimea in Ukraine’s territory in 2014 was considered a violation of the Budapest Memorandum. Putin, however, rejected the criticism calling the Budapest Memorandum invalid as it had been signed with a previous Ukrainian government.
Putin earlier this week claimed that Ukraine was still in possession of Soviet nuclear technology and wanted to make its own nuclear weapons.
“We know that there have already been reports that Ukraine wants to make its own nuclear weapons. This is no empty boast. Ukraine in fact still has Soviet nuclear technology and delivery systems for such weapons,” Putin had said, according to Russian news agency TASS. With inputs from agencies
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, explained
Putin declared a “special military operation” in Ukraine. Now, Europe is witnessing its first major war in decades.
By Jen Kirby and Jonathan Guyer for Vox.com
Russia’s long-looming invasion of Ukraine has officially begun.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday morning local time that he was launching a “special military operation” in Ukraine, a move that was followed up by reports of explosions around cities, including Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine and the capital Kyiv.
The Ukrainian foreign minister confirmed soon after that “Putin has just launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Peaceful Ukrainian cities are under strike.” By the afternoon in Ukraine, Russian troops and tanks had entered the country on three fronts. Dozens of Ukrainians have already died in the conflict, according to local reports.
Putin’s attempt to redraw the map of Europe could lead to the most devastating conflict on the continent since World War II. It could cost thousands of civilian lives and create hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the violence in Ukraine.
Putin’s declaration came while the United Nations Security Council held a special session in New York on the Ukraine crisis, and bombing began shortly thereafter, according to news reports. In his address, Putin claimed “to defend people who for eight years are suffering persecution and genocide by the Kyiv regime,” a reference to a false claim about the government in Ukraine. Putin claimed that the Russian military seeks “demilitarization and denazification” but not occupation. He demanded Ukraine lay down its weapons or be “responsible for bloodshed.”
Exactly what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine is hard to know. Russia has already used misinformation tactics and may jam up local communications. But it’s hard to interpret what Putin said as anything other than a full declaration of war.
The tension over Ukraine has been building for months but escalated quickly this week when, on Monday, Putin delivered an hour-long combative speech that essentially denied Ukrainian statehood. He recognized the independence of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine where Moscow has backed a separatist rebellion since 2014 and sent so-called peacekeeping forces into the region. As experts said, that was likely just the beginning, setting the stage for a much larger conflict.
Putin’s escalation comes after the United States warned, again and again, that a larger invasion by Putin was imminent, and after the US and its European allies imposed significant — but far from all-encompassing — sanctions on Moscow.
“President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering,” President Joe Biden said in a statement following Putin’s announcement. “Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way. The world will hold Russia accountable.”
But Ukraine — and the world — is in a perilous and unpredictable moment. Hours before Putin’s announcement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an impassioned speech against war, one directed to a Russian audience, as a final plea: “War takes away guarantees for everyone,” he said. “No one will have any kind of guarantees of security. And who will suffer from that the most? People.”
Ukraine is under siege
We are still learning the extent of Putin’s bombardment as his war unfolds. Amid hours of bombing, Russians have entered Ukraine from the north, south, and east, “assaulting by land, sea and air,” according to Reuters. Now Ukrainians are fleeing major cities, and lines are growing at the country’s border with Poland, as reports of civilian deaths are just becoming clear.
The Ukrainian government said on Thursday that more than 40 soldiers had been killed.
Russian troops landed in at least two Ukrainian cities, Mariupol and Odessa, where local authorities report that 18 people were killed. The capital of Kyiv appears to be Russian troops’ next target.
President Zelensky said Thursday that Russian forces were trying to seize control of Chernobyl, the site of a 1986 nuclear disaster. Ukraine’s foreign ministry warned this could become “an ecological disaster.”
“This is a deliberate, cold-blooded, and long-planned invasion. Russia is using force to try to rewrite history,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters. The alliance will meet today to plan for ways to strengthen the defense of neighboring NATO countries Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland.
Zelensky convened a Ukraine security council meeting in the early hours of Thursday and imposed martial law, according to news reports. In a video, Zelensky urged Ukrainians not to panic. “We are ready for everything. We will defeat everyone. Because we are Ukraine.”
The roots of the current crisis grew from the breakup of the Soviet Union
Over the last few months, Putin had amassed close to 190,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, a force that military analysts said was clearly prepared and ready to launch an invasion.
Such an invasion would — and does — contravene security agreements the Soviet Union made upon its breakup in the early ’90s. At the time, Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, had the third-largest atomic arsenal in the world. The US and Russia worked with Ukraine to denuclearize the country, and in a series of diplomatic agreements, Kyiv gave its hundreds of nuclear warheads back to Russia in exchange for security assurances that protected it from a potential Russian attack.
But the very premise of a post-Soviet Europe is also helping to fuel today’s conflict. Putin has been fixated on reclaiming some semblance of empire, lost with the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is central to this vision. Putin has said Ukrainians and Russians “were one people — a single whole,” or at least would be if not for the meddling from outside forces (as in, the West) that has created a “wall” between the two.
Last year, Russia presented the US with a list of demands, some of which were nonstarters for the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Putin demanded that NATO stop its eastward expansion and deny membership to Ukraine, and also made other demands for “security guarantees” around NATO.
The prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO has antagonized Putin at least since President George W. Bush expressed support for the idea in 2008. “That was a real mistake,” Steven Pifer, who from 1998 to 2000 was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton, told Vox in January. “It drove the Russians nuts. It created expectations in Ukraine and Georgia, which then were never met. And so that just made that whole issue of enlargement a complicated one.”
Ukraine is the fourth-largest recipient of military funding from the US, and the intelligence cooperation between the two countries has deepened in response to threats from Russia. But Ukraine isn’t joining NATO in the near future, and Biden has said as much. Still, Moscow’s demand was largely seen as a non-starter by the West, as NATO’s open-door policy says sovereign countries can choose their own security alliances.
Though Putin has continued to tout the threat of NATO, his speech on Monday showed that his obsession with Ukraine goes far beyond that. He does not see the government in Ukraine as legitimate.
“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he said, per the Kremlin’s official translation. “Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians.”
The two countries do have historical and cultural ties, but as Vox’s Zack Beauchamp explained, Putin’s “basic claim — that there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty — is demonstrably false.”
As experts noted, it is difficult to square Putin’s speech — plus a 2021 essay he penned, and other statements he’s made — with any sort of realistic diplomatic outcome to avert conflict. It was, essentially, a confession that this wasn’t really about NATO, said Dan Baer, the acting director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. “It was about that he doesn’t think Ukraine has a right to exist as a free country,” he said before Putin’s escalation Wednesday night.
This is the culmination of eight years of tensions
This isn’t the first time Russia has attacked Ukraine. In 2014, Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and invaded eastern Ukraine and backed Russia separatists in the eastern Donbas region. That conflict has killed more than 14,000 people to date.
Russia’s assault grew out of mass protests in Ukraine that toppled the country’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, which began over his abandonment of a trade agreement with the European Union. US diplomats visited the demonstrations, in symbolic gestures that further agitated Putin.
President Barack Obama, hesitant to escalate tensions with Russia any further, was slow to mobilize a diplomatic response in Europe and did not immediately provide Ukrainians with offensive weapons.
“A lot of us were really appalled that not more was done for the violation of that [post-Soviet] agreement,” said Ian Kelly, a career diplomat who served as ambassador to Georgia from 2015 to 2018. “It just basically showed that if you have nuclear weapons” — as Russia does — “you’re inoculated against strong measures by the international community.”
Since then, corruption has persisted in the Ukrainian government, and the country ranks in the bottom third of the watchdog group Transparency International’s index.
Ukraine’s far-right presence has grown and become somewhat normalized, and there are government-aligned fascist militias in the country. But Moscow has drawn out those issues to advance false claims about genocide and other attacks on civilians as a way to legitimize the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine and to create a pretext for invasion. In his prerecorded speech shared on the eve of the bombardment of Ukraine, Putin said he sought the “de-nazifacation” of Ukraine.
To be clear: The Ukrainian government is not a Nazi regime and has not been co-opted by the far right. Zelensky is Jewish; he speaks proudly of how his Jewish grandfather fought against Hitler’s army.
Yet, days earlier, Putin used these sorts of claims as part of his explanation for recognizing as independent the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic, the two territories in eastern Ukraine where he has backed separatists since 2014. “Announcing the decisions taken today, I am confident in the support of the citizens of Russia. Of all the patriotic forces of the country,” Putin said before moving troops into the regions for “peacekeeping” purposes.
At the time, most experts Vox spoke to said that looked like the beginning, not the end, of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine.
“In Russia, [it] provides the political-legal basis for the formal introduction of Russian forces, which they’ve already decided to do,” Michael Kofman, research director in the Russia studies program at CNA, a research organization in Arlington, Virginia, said at the time. “Secondarily, it provides the legal local basis for Russian use force in defense of these independent Republic’s Russians citizens there. It’s basically political theater.”
It set “the stage for the next steps,” he added. Wednesday, those next steps became clear.
How the rest of the world is responding
The United States and its allies around the world have condemned Russia’s invasion on Ukraine. Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz called it a “dark day for Europe.”
“The events of last night mark a turning point in the history of Europe,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
All leaders have vowed consequences for Russia. As President Biden said: “The world will hold Russia accountable.”
So far, however, the US and its allies have not imposed additional penalties on Russia, something Biden and other world leaders promised after placing the first round of sanctions on Moscow earlier this week. Biden is meeting with Group of Seven leaders this morning, and is scheduled to address the nation on Russia’s “unprovoked attack” early on Thursday afternoon.
The United States has said it will not involve troops in any Ukrainian conflict, though the US has shored up its presence on NATO’s eastern flank. Biden had previously said that the US will continue to provide defensive support for Ukraine, and some are calling for the US and its partners to provide more lethal aid to the largely outmatched Ukrainian army.
Russia largely knows that the US and its partners to not want to commit themselves military, and, early Thursday as he launched his invasion, he offered an ominous warning as he touted Russia’s nuclear arsenal: “There should be no doubt that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.”
NATO has vowed to protect its members from any Russian aggression. Experts said NATO also had other options, including activating the NATO Response Force, a 50,000 troop unit modernized after the 2014 Crimea invasion.
Yet these are largely defensive measures — which means most of the punishment against Russia will come in the form of sanctions, which are likely to include penalties on Russia’s financial institutions and oligarchs and potentially export bans on high-grade technologies. This will likely be the harshest sanctions possible ever directed at Russia or a major power like it, but that will come with potential costs to the global economy, and especially to Europe and the United States. The price of oil has already risen to more than $100 per barrel.
The prospects of a settlement with Russia are impossible to contemplate as bombs are falling on Ukraine, but the US and its allies are going to have to do careful diplomacy to isolate and put pressure on Russia in the long term. The US and its allies are also likely going to have to decide how much they want, or can, support Ukraine as it tries to battle Russia.
“The real question, I think, is going to come down to what extent the West can and will try to support and supply a long-term insurgency against Russia,” said Paul D’Anieri, an expert on Eastern European and post-Soviet politics at the University of California Riverside. “And what level of success does Russia have in fighting back against? Unfortunately, it seems like the best strategy for peace right now is when enough Russians die, that the Russians decide it’s not worth it anymore.”