• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Damn, I just took off my boots and stuck my cap in the wall... and here again the Americans have appointed an invasion of Ukraine for me... I'm not going. I'm tired.

Too busy these days getting your penal colony in Russia ready for incoming Ukrainian POW's?
 
The agreement was long broken by the West, by expanding NATO to the east.

It culminated with the coup orchestrated by Washington in Kiev in 2013-2014 - virulent anti-russian John McCain was in Kiev agitating the crowds against Yanukovich who was still in power, removing the pro-Russian president, and installing American puppets(with very clear evidence of that) - a few months afterwards, in September 2014 there were NATO exercises in Ukraine.

It astounding how the Americans are trying to make a huge drama out of some baseless allegations related to how some alleged "russian trollls" would have spread some "disinformation" related to elections in the US - which even if true wouldn't be much of an issue - people can have opinions online - YET they ignore they're own REGIME CHANGE OPERATIONS that involve a lot of illegal stuff(far beyond disinfo which is usual cia stuff) - employing others for various subversive activities directly affecting the government and the security of the country!

First, there was no agreement in writing or by so much as a handshake. As I pointed out in posts 45 and 46, the entire discussion was in the context of Germany and its reunification. The other countries were not a part of that context for good reason; they were in the Warsaw pact and Moscow strongly believed that they would remain so. Whatever the purpose of Baker's nonspecific blandishments the fact is that the statements and notes of the leaders of the Soviet Union negotiating the deal DIDN'T consider it even a subject, let alone agreement over eastern Europe in general. YOU are hearing a "promise" and "agreement" in your head that the Soviets didn't "hear" at the time.

Second, the "coup" was not orchestrated by Washington (the Obama administration). The pivotal sequence of events began when after repeated promises, including campaign promises by Yanukovych, and after six years of laborious negotiation with the EU the acceptance of Ukraine into the EU was about to conclude with a signing. Putin's secret meddling cumulated in several secret meetings with Yanukovych, the final one in St. Petersburg.

Putin's inducements to not sign a free trade agreement with the EU and only permit one with Russia had failed. Now Yanukovych faced blackmail, Putin threated him with severely restricted imports of its goods to Russia, particularly from companies in eastern Ukraine, which accommodates the greater share of its industry and employs hundreds of thousands of people (the east being Yanukovych's power base).

Yanukovych's sudden reversal after this last meeting was a massive shock to the people of Ukraine and the EU. That immediately initiated the protests and nearly simultaneously Putin blamed "European partners" pushing for those mass protests and making threats against Russia. Putin called it "blackmail" (ironic coming from the man who blackmailed Yanukovych).

Euromaidan occurred weeks before McCain's tour of the protester's occupation zone, he didn't represent the administration, and whatever cheerleading for democracy he did isn't "orchestration". Clearly Putin was the master orchestrator.

Finally, there is nothing in Nueland's Russian bugged conversation (itself without the full transcript or context) that is more than attempts to influence players through arguments. Unlike Putin I see no threats of economic retaliation or use of force.
 
Anybody shocked traitorous vanilla ISIS is in support of our enemies? Not me, full on terrorists
 
The agreement was long broken by the West, by expanding NATO to the east.

It culminated with the coup orchestrated by Washington in Kiev in 2013-2014 - virulent anti-russian John McCain was in Kiev agitating the crowds against Yanukovich who was still in power, removing the pro-Russian president, and installing American puppets(with very clear evidence of that) - a few months afterwards, in September 2014 there were NATO exercises in Ukraine.

It astounding how the Americans are trying to make a huge drama out of some baseless allegations related to how some alleged "russian trollls" would have spread some "disinformation" related to elections in the US - which even if true wouldn't be much of an issue - people can have opinions online - YET they ignore they're own REGIME CHANGE OPERATIONS that involve a lot of illegal stuff(far beyond disinfo which is usual cia stuff) - employing others for various subversive activities directly affecting the government and the security of the country!
Yankovich was a russian stooge that was removed by the Ukrainian people. What does Russia have to do with Ukraine (a sovereign country) anyway? The USSR is dead...

and Russia is a broken-down old gas station in the global economy.
 
Yankovich was a russian stooge that was removed by the Ukrainian people.

Yanukovych was an ethnic Russian President of Ukraine. And so inclined to be pro Russia. And he was not removed by the Ukrainian people, he was removed by the ethnic Ukrainian fraction of Ukraine against the wishes of the ethnic Russian fraction of Ukraine



What does Russia have to do with Ukraine (a sovereign country) anyway? The USSR is dead...

Russia has every interest in the welfare of ethnic Russian minorities in Ukraine.


and Russia is a broken-down old gas station in the global economy.

terrfic :)
 
The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.
You do not understand, it was about East Germany, because the Soviet Union still thought they could hold East Europe.
Everybody under estimate how far the collapse of the USSR would go.
East Germany was considered the new buffer zone for the Warsaw Pact. But then the Warsaw Pact imploded and the East European got rid of the Soviet domination, when the USSR collapsed.
Knowing history is rather helpful
 
Yanukovych was an ethnic Russian President of Ukraine. And so inclined to be pro Russia. And he was not removed by the Ukrainian people, he was removed by the ethnic Ukrainian fraction of Ukraine against the wishes of the ethnic Russian fraction of Ukraine





Russia has every interest in the welfare of ethnic Russian minorities in Ukraine.




terrfic :)
Russia has no say over ethnic Russians in other countries, none. When they return to Russia they can allow them to participate in Russian society.
 
The ironic part is that Putin's shenanigans and war in the Donbass is actually pushing the Ukrainian public towards wanting to join NATO even more.
 
Russia has no say over ethnic Russians in other countries, none. When they return to Russia they can allow them to participate in Russian society.


Ok.
 
You do not understand, it was about East Germany, because the Soviet Union still thought they could hold East Europe.
Everybody under estimate how far the collapse of the USSR would go.
East Germany was considered the new buffer zone for the Warsaw Pact. But then the Warsaw Pact imploded and the East European got rid of the Soviet domination, when the USSR collapsed.
Knowing history is rather helpful


Is the Russian Federation not the legal successor state of the defunct Soviet Union?
 
Another Trump supporter spouting pro-Russian propaganda. And from RT.com no less.
What will you say once thousands of Ukrainians start dying? Will you continue with your lies and excuses?
How is what Russia is doing to Georgia and Ukraine (and likely Moldova soon) any different from NATO's theft of Kosovo from Serbia?
 
Because RT says so?
Are you guys ever gonna learn?
Given that I meet a paywall and don't have access to these "new" minutes, I'm not going to assume that German journalists hype and characterization is warranted.
I will say, however, that the record on this claim is very muddy, complicated by evolving negotiations, and it's ambiguity exists only because the Russians didn't bother to seek either a treaty or memorandum of understanding...in writing.
So Putin was right all along. Not that I had any doubts anyways. It is inconceivable that at the time both sides would have sat down to discuss the two Germanies without addressing what it meant for the Soviet Union.

On the question of promises against NATO expansion, Putin is correct:
 
How is what Russia is doing to Georgia and Ukraine (and likely Moldova soon) any different from NATO's theft of Kosovo from Serbia?

Serbia was invading Kosovo. But it turns out they didn't like having their own cities bombed, so they gave it up. Any heroic intentions of Serbia were blatantly not in evidence.
 
Russia has no say over ethnic Russians in other countries
I'm afraid you don't understand one nuance... Russia believes that it has such a right.
What you repeat over and over again is "there is no such right.".. it doesn't change anything.
 
On the question of promises against NATO expansion, Putin is correct:

Reposting a link to an article already addressed and debunked in my prior posts doesn't restore its veracity. So I'll keep my additional comments brief:

First, the article has a scattering of partial quotes most of which are not in context.

Second, the article does not make a necessary and clear distinction, i.e. documentation recording what western leaders shared among themselves, or what disagreements they may have had are irrelevant. All of these kinds of quotes merely clutter and confuse the reader. What matters is the documentation on what the leader of the Soviet Union and his Foreign Policy Minister believed they heard because they were fully aware of the context of any blandishments communicated to them.

Third, the collection of materials published in 2015, a thick volume of declassified Soviet documents (most of it in Russian) pertaining to German reunification is contrary to your claim. The collection includes materials released from the Russian Presidential Archive as well as lengthy excerpts from the diaries and notebooks of Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze, the chief aide to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who took notes on Shevardnadze's discussions and thoughts before, during, and after the 1990 negotiations.

Finally, all this material and the prior English language links to both Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze completely confirm that negotiations did not address anything regarding NATO beyond that of a reunified Germany. Whatever meaning a person applies to today is irrelevant because 32 years ago the participants knew and agreed to exactly what was agreed upon and discussed.

Frankly, if you can't take the word of Gorbachev and Shevardnadze (or his notes) then all you are saying is that Soviet leadership should have listened in a broader context, like if the Warsaw Pact that would dissolve. Well, they didn't.
 
Third, the collection of materials published in 2015, a thick volume of declassified Soviet documents (most of it in Russian) pertaining to German reunification is contrary to your claim. The collection includes materials released from the Russian Presidential Archive as well as lengthy excerpts from the diaries and notebooks of Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze, the chief aide to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who took notes on Shevardnadze's discussions and thoughts before, during, and after the 1990 negotiations.

Finally, all this material and the prior English language links to both Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze completely confirm that negotiations did not address anything regarding NATO beyond that of a reunified Germany. Whatever meaning a person applies to today is irrelevant because 32 years ago the participants knew and agreed to exactly what was agreed upon and discussed.
Is any of this material (or some sort of reputable article summarizing it) accessible to someone who speaks English?
 
Serbia was invading Kosovo.
Kosovo is part of Serbia. How can a country invade itself?

I guess by that same standard Ukraine is invading itself too, and Russia is coming to the rescue.


But it turns out they didn't like having their own cities bombed, so they gave it up.
No they didn't. Serbia has never agreed to NATO's theft of Kosovo.

Not that agreement under duress would have any legitimacy even if they had done so.


Any heroic intentions of Serbia were blatantly not in evidence.
Is self defense a heroic intention? Because Serbia did their best to defend themselves from NATO's aggression.
 
Is any of this material (or some sort of reputable article summarizing it) accessible to someone who speaks English?

The only material that is English, to my knowledge, is the interview material of Gorbachev and Shevardnadze. If you like I will locate some links to that.
 
The only material that is English, to my knowledge, is the interview material of Gorbachev and Shevardnadze. If you like I will locate some links to that.
I just did a search after reading your reply. Are these the interviews that you mean?
 
I'm afraid you don't understand one nuance... Russia believes that it has such a right.
What you repeat over and over again is "there is no such right.".. it doesn't change anything.
Belief in a right does not make it a right. I'm sure Germany felt they had a right to roll over Poland as well.
 
The ironic part is that Putin's shenanigans and war in the Donbass is actually pushing the Ukrainian public towards wanting to join NATO even more.
Which proves that Putin is one dumb son of a bitch.
 
Belief in a right does not make it a right. I'm sure Germany felt they had a right to roll over Poland as well.
Does the US have the right to turn over Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria? It seems that no one has ever given such a right anywhere.
 
German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source


The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany contain multiple references to “2+4” talks on German unification in which the Western officials made it “clear” to the Soviet Union that NATO would not push into territory east of Germany.

“We made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations – that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe,” the document quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz.

“NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially,” Seitz added.

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.”

“We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe [sic],”
said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. “We could not therefore offer Poland and others membership in NATO.”
Does an agreement with the USSR carry over after the USSR is broken up into smaller countries? Does it apply to each of those smaller countries? Or just Russia?
 
Back
Top Bottom