This issue is so old now that I have forgotten most of the details. What I remember is the common factors and some of the timelines. Basically, your viewpoint is correct. But if you add the common factors and look at the time period the contracts were signed and the end results today. My take on it is also correct. The contract, if written in today’s contract font, would only be one page.
Points of view. Clinton - At today’s lunch I discussed three ways in which my nation is prepared to advance Europe’s democratic integration by supporting your region’s continued renewal and security. First, we discussed the Partnership For Peace, the American proposal NATO has just adopted. The Partnership invites all former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet states, plus other non-NATO members in Europe, to join in military cooperation with NATO in training exercise and operations jointly.
Did Russia join? Yes. In 1994 “It was no longer not just about security. It was also political. That’s why the alliance has survived for so many years,” he says. In 1994, Russia officially signed up to the NATO Partnership for Peace, a program aimed at building trust between NATO and other European and former Soviet countries.
I think this is why it is so hard today to come up with written facts you are looking for. Which is quite reasonable.
PACT REACHED TO DISMANTLE UKRAINE’S NUCLEAR FORCE
The Washington Post
The Ukraine agreement is complex, and some of it is to remain secret or deliberately vague under the terms of the negotiations that produced it. As part of the agreement, Clinton will travel to Kiev on Wednesday to appear at the airport there with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk to hail the pact and show support for the Ukrainian leader. This appearance, called “an official stamp of U.S. involvement and approval” will be followed Friday with the three-way signing in Moscow.
In exchange for giving up its nuclear arms, Ukraine is to get significant benefits. The struggling republic’s massive debt to Russia for energy imports will be forgiven and it will receive nuclear fuel, economic and technical aid from the United States, and security guarantees that Ukraine was said to regard as critical. Ukraine’s acute fear of Russia has made it hesitant to give up its nuclear arms, and that fear was exacerbated last month by the electoral victory in Russia of ultranationalists who have vowed to reabsorb Ukraine and other territories.
To implement the agreement, the United States will form a quasi-public corporation to buy an estimated $12 billion worth of uranium from warheads to be dismantled by the four nuclear-armed ex-Soviet republics. It would resell the uranium to civilian nuclear power plants to recoup its costs.
What we must debate is if Ukraine does have the ability to join NATO today. I think we would both agree it would. It is the problem of the US to provide Ukraine with reactor rods. The US is using Russian uranium here in America for 30% of our nuclear power. 50% of Ukraine’s electricity comes from the reactors. Common factors. Does the US do business this way? Biden said he would destroy the Nord Stream gas lines. Then nothing happened for over a year. Two days after the hook up to Poland of Norway gas that was originally built to use Nord Stream gas was finished. The Nord Stream lines were blown up. So, yes. Biden does.
That said. Why doesn’t Biden let Ukraine join NATO? Fact is it was Biden who shot down Ukraine from joining. The NPT contract is what I think was his roadblock. Only congress can break it. Not the President.
One should ask why and who sold American mined uranium to Uranium One. Wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow-based Uranium One Group, part of the Russian state-owned nuclear corp. Rosatom. Today’s problems. Built upon yesterday’s actions. The US legal system makes dealing with the costs of uranium labor in the US almost prohibited. The Ukraine nuclear weapons cleanup was done in Switzerland.
