Ukraine today is probably sorry it agreed to give up its third largest arsenal of nuclear arms because of assurances of future protection. Underestimated was possible political wrangling making the promise fragile at best while people are being killed daily. Our military see our arsenal as a deterrent to counter threatening rogue states and self defense in a troublesome world. Where would we be today without this counter balance for self defense? Like taking guns from the police when the fearful public has moved to arm themselves, like today.

The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was offered to Ukraine whereby Russia, the United States, United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland agreed upon Ukraine’s joining the “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” to various terms and obligations confirming to 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 defense.

Each agreed to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and confirming to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. The three nations reaffirmed they would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state as party to the Treaty thus clearly becoming U.S. foreign policy.

However, participant Russia did invade neighbor Ukraine and did threaten nuclear attacks, both being violations of the memorandum, plus being formerly condemned with crimes against humanity, thereafter the U.S. now becomes involved, not by choice but by pledge of support to Ukraine. Complicating matters is that Russia has a permanent seat on United Nation Security Council with veto powers along with China which has resulted in lack of action to solve the issue while Russia drops bombs and missiles daily on civilians and their cultural and health structures. No warring country should sit on the Security Council to judge itself; Russia should abstain from participating on that issue or the council should vote to remove Russia by majority vote until the war is concluded by treaty. But China sits on the council and supports Russia.

What happens if a weakened Russia is allowed to win the war? Russia will gain another puppet state along with other grain-strapped nations which now will be bribed using grain and oil-gas deals for votes in the U.N. to thwart punishing Putin for the U.N.’s documenting of humanitarian crimes. Failure to support Ukraine with money and arms before exhaustion of manpower will not only affect Ukraine but the rest of the world as they wonder will America also pull out support for Taiwan and South Korea like for Afghanistan? Liberty and freedom cost money, luckily if only with a military build-up which is the better deal.

History repeats itself, appeasement with petty sanctions for fear of financial losses only worsens and prolongs wars eventually giving up after many lives are lost and are bankrupt. Supporting Ukraine with the arms and money they need to win, educating Russian citizenry as to what is actually happening, and imposing severe sanctions will shorten the war and hinder other autocratic leaders from following suit. Appeasement is what has gotten us here as world financial losses were considered more important than strict demand for freedom, resulting in a paralyzed U.N. Support for Ukraine is urgent and immediate before further complications develop. Wars must be prevented by diplomacy and quickly ended with global sanctions while nuclear activities allowable only for public benefits.

John Skibiski lives in Northampton.