West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

[Slartibartfast]

Amazing your leap of thoughts. No i dont "support" a Russian invasion. i get it because of prior NATO expansion, and the threat (to Russia) of NATO on it's land border -500 mile from Russia where land forces could be launched against Russia

what I support id Minsk - but on a much larger scale to rebalance the heel on the throat of Putin
which causes him to lash out

I get their point of view too (after studying the matter for a week) but I think they are wrong.

 

[anatta]

Well I can't speak for the process of the other participants, but this "agreement" is not binding on the US. It's not a treaty in the constitutional sense, and any participants who thought it was were kidding themselves.

few foreign policy actuions are based on treaties. this was based on negotiations and good faith amouung the participants. Look at the reasoning it was, not th enforcement powers

the Euros gave their word, and it looks like we did as well to accomplish the treaty of reunification
for a reason, and that was to protect Russian security needs from NATO expansion..

not doing so leads to us ina proxy war against Russia and a possible Russian invasion

 

[anatta]

Did you miss the second half of the post you quoted?

it doesnt matter what you personally support does it? it matters where it goes

 

[Juin]

German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow right

www.rt.com

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.”

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.

Jens Stolenberg is a first class liar.

 

[Juin]

I don’t care what promises were made.

Terrific!

Russia is a dictatorship and is not a valid party to negotiate with on such matters.

Brilliant. Truly brilliant!

 

[Airyaman]

“We made it clear to the Soviet Union

Who?

 

[Slartibartfast]

it doesnt matter what you personally support does it? it matters where it goes

Incorrect. I do not support war over this.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

few foreign policy actuions are based on treaties. this was based on negotiations and good faith amouung the participants. Look at the reasoning it was, not th enforcement powers

the Euros gave their word, and it looks like we did as well to accomplish the treaty of reunification
for a reason, and that was to protect Russian security needs from NATO expansion..

not doing so leads to us ina proxy war against Russia and a possible Russian invasion

Yeah, blame the victim. Ukraine expressed an interest in NATO membership, therefore they're breaking some agreement and it's OK for Russia to invade them.

How about respecting Ukrainian sovereignty instead of treating them like a pawn? NATO didn't hold a gun to their head, and nor should Russia.

 

[Juin]

I'm with you there.



But this reeks of "white man's burden" and I reject it. Western nations can apply pressure, to spread their preferred values but nothing good ever came of overthrowing regimes in the hope their people would embrace democracy, freedom, capitalism or really anything.

What the West fails to get is that people are happier under moderately evil dictators like Gaddafi or Castro or Saddam, providing Western conveniences like sewers and electricity are getting rolled out at an acceptable pace. The West has to concentrate on economic development not Western values like free speech or democracy, or the West will be a minority in a world dominated by the East.

I agree. I will only like to point out that the west would not act any differently under same circumstances as the others. Bottom line is the first duty of a government- any government: democracy, dictatorship whatever- is to provide stability and security. There is no ands if or buts about that. You can't deliver, you have to go.

What is usually promised by the liberation ideologues of the West is stable, prosperous Jeffersonian democracy. What the Libyans, Iraqis, Syrians would up with was instability, civil wars, crime, poverty, near total anarchy. Is it a surprise if they long for some strong man to at least provide the bare minimum: stability and security?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow right

www.rt.com

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.”

Because RT says so?

Are you guys ever gonna learn?

 

[Juin]

Because RT says so?

It's actually a Der Spiegel contribution. RT is only pointing to work done by Der Spiegel.

Are you guys ever gonna learn?

Russians are the ones who were sold a false bill of goods. They appear to be a lot wiser this time around

 

[Airyaman]

It's actually a Der Spiegel contribution. RT is only pointing to work done by Der Spiegel.






Russians are the ones who were sold a false bill of goods. They appear to be a lot wiser this time around

No, the Soviet Union was told there would be no expansion. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It's actually a Der Spiegel contribution. RT is only pointing to work done by Der Spiegel.






Russians are the ones who were sold a false bill of goods. They appear to be a lot wiser this time around

An unwritten "general understanding" from 30 years ago by folks who are no longer involved?

Is RT faithfully reporting the thrust of the Der Spiegel piece? They aren't exactly known for their honesty in reporting, you know.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

No, the Soviet Union was told there would be no expansion. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

There's that, too.

 

[anatta]

Yeah, blame the victim. Ukraine expressed an interest in NATO membership, therefore they're breaking some agreement and it's OK for Russia to invade them.

How about respecting Ukrainian sovereignty instead of treating them like a pawn? NATO didn't hold a gun to their head, and nor should Russia.

first off Russia hasnt yet invaded, and even Biden said a "minor incursion" isnt a big deal (actionable)
Except Biden can't remember what he says from one day to the next.

There was a reason for the Budapest memorandum -to keep Ukraine a neural buffer.

 

[anatta]

I agree. I will only like to point out that the west would not act any differently under same circumstances as the others. Bottom line is the first duty of a government- any government: democracy, dictatorship whatever- is to provide stability and security. There is no ands if or buts about that. You can't deliver, you have to go.

What is usually promised by the liberation ideologues of the West is stable, prosperous Jeffersonian democracy. What the Libyans, Iraqis, Syrians would up with was instability, civil wars, crime, poverty, near total anarchy. Is it a surprise if they long for some strong man to at least provide the bare minimum: stability and security?

when we invade/regime change -hey it's a noble cause

 

[Airyaman]

There's that, too.

Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union, seems like they're OK with it.

 

[Nilhus]

No need for rt or der spiegel...

Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts) | National Security Archive

nsarchive.gwu.edu

main page:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard​

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[Roadvirus]

German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow right

www.rt.com

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.”

RT

 

[maxparrish]

German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow right

www.rt.com

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.”

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.

As you likely know, it started with the 1990 negotiations on Germany. And in the latter half of the 1990s, Russian officials retrospectively became concerned and began to claim they had “categorical assurances,” “solemn pledges,” and “binding commitments” that the former vassal countries (aside from East Germany) would be brought into NATO.

Yet, the Russians declined to release Soviet documents of these events and continued to stonewall till a decade passed in the 2000s. Since then the crucial notes and detailed notes from these negotiations from a RUSSIAN perspective was released. Those include 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.

What U.S. officials thought among them themselves is not relevant unless they conveyed it to their Soviet counterparts. While most of this material is in Russian, there are two open sources that are undeniably important: Mikhail Gorbachev's interview in October of 2014, and Shevardnadze's numerous interviews.

Gorbachev unambiguously stated that that NATO expansion “was not discussed at all” and “was not brought up.” and Shevardnadze's has repeatedly insisted that “a possible eastward expansion of NATO” beyond Germany “was never discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990” and that “the question never came up [in the talks on German reunification. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond German borders never came up for negotiation.”

Gorbachev and Shevardnadze held crucial negotiations in February 1990 with U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, but when the topic of NATO came up their only concern was about the future status of the territory that had been part of the GDR since 1949. More than 330,000 Soviet troops were still deployed on East German soil, and the Soviet Union as a postwar occupying power enjoyed international legal prerogatives in the GDR. The disposition of East German territory during the process of German reunification was a key sticking point in the negotiations, and Gorbachev and Shevardnadze discussed it at length with their Western counterparts. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany were able to arrange a special transitional status for GDR territory, as spelled out in the final accords. The notion that Soviet leaders believed that those accords were referring to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, or Bulgaria is an anachronistic distortion.

NATO Enlargement—Was There a Promise?

Joshua Shifrinson's article “Deal or No Deal?” presents a flawed account of the negotiations in 1990 that led to the reunification of Germany.1 His observations at the end of the piece about Russian foreign policy under Vladimir Putin overlook the continuity of Russian policy toward neighboring...

direct.mit.edu

 

[maxparrish]

This is completely understandable. The notes of Shevardnadze's aide Stepanov-Mamaladze shows that, in January and February 1990, Soviet leaders were highly confident that the Warsaw Pact was going to survive. Poland was even asking the Soviet Union to keep its troops in Poland because of fear of possible German ambitions to recover WWII lost territories. and was calling for the consolidation of the Pact.

The problem here is that retrospective claims about informal or implied assurances is highly tainted by ex post subjective impressions. There are differences between an actual pledge and tangential blandishments meant to put off unnecessary concerns. Complicating the matter is that the NATO position was fluid, and only solidified when the actual treaty was negotiated which, by the way, made sure that words like "deployment limits" wouldn't restrict NATOs ability to add Poland, should it ever be realistic.

The bottom line is that Putin was not in power during Gorbachev's or Yeltsin's leadership. He may wish he was, but his current obsession and drive for reunification was not on the agenda. It's too late to turn the clock back to 1990 and reconstitute eastern Europe and former soviet republic Nato members as Russian tributary states. While Byelorussia is a puppet state dictatorship, Ukraine is not and does not wish to be.

Likely Ukraine will be invaded in the next 24 to 48 hours. And a new era of Russian imperial rule will begin.

 

[mrjurrs]

German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source

West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel

Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow right

www.rt.com

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.”

And there was a general agreement that Russia would not annex Crimea. Your point?

 

[Nilhus]

And there was a general agreement that Russia would not annex Crimea. Your point?

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!

 

[Fabiusbile]

Likely Ukraine will be invaded in the next 24 to 48 hours. And a new era of Russian imperial rule will begin.

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.

 

[Rogue Valley]

So for me the moral of the story is that the West can't be trusted

You are a Russian citizen and a Putin supporter for Gods sake.

You exist here to bash the West lol.