Scott75

Not a feeling, it's an absolute certainty. I even take to telling many of my ideological opponents that I'm repeating what I've said in the hopes that they actually read more of what I write or quote the second time around. At least one of them has taken to calling it spam, not realizing that what they call spam is in fact that information that they find inconvenient. Now, I will grant that once in a blue moon, they may have some point that would invalidate at least some of the information, but it can take a long time for them to actually express this in a way that I can understand. Yes. However, I would extend this to just about everyone, if not everyone, if said person holds a strongly held belief that is mistaken. When a person has such a belief, it can be very hard to persuade them that their belief is mistaken. Methods that can be employed to sustain one's mistaken belief can frequently be to filter out information that doesn't fit in with one's belief, or to misinterpret it. Thus, the need to frequently repeat points that these people have filtered out or misinterpreted.

How was he assured? You notice how you frequently snip everything I quote? A lot of the time, the material I quote backs up what I say. This time is no exception. The very title of the article you snipped out makes this rather clear. Perhaps you can actually read what I quoted this time around. Once more, from the top: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

LOL, so... screw the guy there, your argument is to ignore him and keep making the same assertion I have already picked apart. If my argument was to ignore him, I would have done what you just did with the material I quoted, which is snip it right out. Instead, I actually went back to your article that interviewed Gorbachev as I felt it deserved a response. Gorbachev would hardly be the first politician that misremembered what happened during a rather important event and I can see why he might want to forget. In case you haven't yet figured it out, he might have deeply regreted not getting all those assurances he received into the final formal agreement. As I've pointed out in this thread numerous times, those who followed Gorbachev as President were quite vocal about their belief that the U.S. betrayed them when it came to their assurances that NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of Germany.

"Possibly" is the best you got. For any audience members that may not be sure as to what robosmith is referring to, I imagine it's a word in the title of an article from the mainstream media publication The Daily Mail that I quoted. The full title is "Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders". My response is that that title is just the tip of the iceberg. Even the Daily Mail article itself suggests that far from just a possibility, it is in fact probably the truth. Once again quoting from said article: ** Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers Call between EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonia's foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet Paet appears to claim opposition leaders hired the snipers that killed 94 By JOHN HALL Published: 13:14 EST, 5 March 2014 | Updated: 04:28 EST, 6 March 2014 Estonia has confirmed the authenticity of a leaked telephone call between its foreign minister and an EU chief which suggested the sniper killings in Ukraine last month were ordered by the new coalition. The 11-minute call between the EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and her Estonian counterpart Urmas Paet was made on February 25 in the aftermath of the massacre. During the call, Paet claims a doctor told him both protesters and police were shot by snipers during clashes in Kiev allegedly on the orders of the opposition. ** I also notice that robosmith never answered the question I asked him, nor said a word about the -other- article I linked to. Once more, the question and the other article: ** So, as I asked you before, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence? As I also wrote in the past, this UK Daily Mail article wasn't the only article that strongly suggested that Yanukovych's government wasn't behind the killings. An article from Global Research also did that, citing an Italian documentary that interviewed 3 snipers of Georgian nationality who claimed to have participated in the massacre. That article can be seen here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684 **

LOL, the "spirit of the treaty" I find it rather ironic that on the one hand, you laugh at the notion of "the spirit of the treaty" and yet on the other, you disagree with my statement that U.S. official statements are generally worthless. I think anyone with a reasonable sense of logic would understand that Gorbachev was led to believe that the treaty would include no expansion east of Germany. I found a document at the National Security archive that really hammers home that this was Gorbachev's understanding at the time. Quoting from it: ** Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.” The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany. The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.” ** Full article: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

That is a meaningless assurance then. Sadly, I agree with you. U.S. officials' statements are generally worthless. That was not my statement. Ofcourse not, it was mine. I'm pretty sure what you're -trying- to say is that my response to your statement suggests I misinterpreted yours. So, by all means, tell me how Mr. Baker's statements on NATO expansion during his February 9, 1990 meeting with Gorbachev were anything other than worthless. I'll quote from an article from the National Security Archive on exactly what Mr. Baker said to Gorbachev so you can appreciate the context: ** Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) ** Full article: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

I definitely agree with the first point. However, there's a bit of bad news on that front: Truth About USAID Cuts: Trump Will Keep Regime Change Ops Going in Other Agencies | Scheerpost

It sounds like you're saying that Gorbachev was a sucker for believing the West's assurances that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. No, as I quoted to you, not even he believed what you are saying. I decided to have another look at your Brookings Institute article that you mentioned in post #266. Quoting from it: ** Former Soviet President Gorbachev’s View We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” ** Full article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ I can see how those supporting the western mainstream narrative would be quite pleased with that quote from Gorbachev, but it doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev -was- assured that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward" of Germany. By the time of Gorbachev's interview, he was quite old. Surely you've considered the fact that he simply forgot? I've pointed to my post #237 multiple times, but I suspect that you'll never click on the link, so here is what I quoted back then once more: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

That is a meaningless assurance then. Sadly, I agree with you. U.S. officials' statements are generally worthless. I think it's understandable that Gorbachev doesn't want to admit that he was naive when it came to the West's assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward. Yeltsin, who was not yet President when Gorbachev was getting his assurances, was much more forthright on the matter, Putin even more so. An article from Der Spiegel gets into it: ** In September 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote a long letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton. The letter, addressed to "Dear Bill," began with a mention of the two leaders’ "candid exchange of opinions." And then Yeltsin let loose. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were interested in joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was a source of concern to the Russian president. Of course, Yeltsin noted, every country can decide for itself what alliance it would like to be a part of. But the Russian public, he continued, saw the eastern expansion of NATO as "as a sort of neo-isolation" of Russia, a factor, he insisted, that must be taken into account. Yeltsin also made a reference to the Two Plus Four Treaty pertaining to Germany’s reunification in 1990. "The spirit of the treaty," he wrote, "precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East." That letter marked the first time that Russia had accused the West of having broken its word. And despite the fact that the Americans rejected the accusation, a resolution to the conflict has never been found – a situation which has had far-reaching consequences stretching to the present-day. There is essentially no other historical issue that has poisoned relations between Moscow and the West as much in the last three decades as the disagreement over what, precisely, was agreed to in 1990. "You Cheated Us Shamelessly" In the years since Yeltsin sent his letter, NATO has accepted 14 countries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe into the alliance. And the Kremlin has complained of having been duped every step of the way. Just recently, current Russian President Vladimir Putin complained: "You cheated us shamelessly." The focus of the Kremlin’s ire is no longer exclusively on the Two Plus Four deal, but essentially on all accords negotiated since the fall of the Berlin Wall. "You promised us in the 1990s that (NATO) would not move an inch to the East," Putin said in late January. And he is using that history to justify his current demands for written guarantees that Ukraine will never be accepted into the Western alliance. ** Full article: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d

True. Quite some time ago, I started a thread aimed at finding out which "side" begins the name calling. I bet you can figure out who lost. Having said that, it is hard for me to refrain from reciprocal insults because I've been watching this and other events of the last administration all do nothing but harm the general public. It's disgusting what's been done. This reminds me of an episode from Star Trek TNG called Hero Worship. The analogy is that the more defensive we get with insults and the like, the worse the situation becomes. I'll let this clip speak for itself: I'd like to think that most people get on forums because they'd like to see what other people think and come to an agreement as to what is true. I think insulting each other takes us away from that. Getting back to the subject of Ukraine, I think the same thing will happen if a negotiated settlement doesn't happen between Russia and the U.S.

It was rhetorical, meaning that no one with any authority to make such promises made them It sounds like you're saying that Gorbachev was a sucker for believing the West's assurances that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. At this point, I think that Putin also feels like a sucker for believing that the west was really serious about the Ukraine Minsk agreements. The President of Belarus said in 2023 that Russia should have started its military operation in Ukraine back in 2014, back when the U.S. conspired with far right elements to remove the elected Ukrainian President from power: https://www.rt.com/russia/577303-lukashenko-belarus-ukraine-operation/ I think he's mistaken- I think it's good that Putin waited as long as he did, as it made the West's pernicious influence in Ukraine all the more obvious.

So, you admit no formal agreement was made then? I've seen no one in this forum ever say that a formal agreement was made with the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east of Germany. What I -have- been saying for some time now is that Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't go "one inch eastward" of Germany. As I've mentioned to you in the past, I posted strong evidence of this back in post #237. Let me know if you ever read beyond the first paragraph of said post.

Yet another Libbie pressing the panic button. Fact is, Tweenkie-Poo, millions upon millions already know the complete story and want this tragedy ended. What drives me to despair sometimes is that almost everyone starts insulting each other and productive discussion grinds to a halt :-/. In an effort to revive said productive discussion, I definitely think that a lot of people do realize that the western mainstream media narrative on the Ukraine war is false.

It's all there in post #237. I suspect you never even read beyond the first paragraph of the post.

Russia left East Germany in return for guarantees that NATO wouldn't move 1 inch past Germany. The US and other major NATO countries' representatives made the same assurances. NATO broke their part of the bargain long before Russia did. True. However, robosmith wasn't talking about NATO expansion in the post you're responding to, but the Budapest Memorandum. From what I've read, the U.S. broke the Budapest agreement back in 2014. An introduction to the Budapest Memorandum, from Wikipedia's page on the subject: ** The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.[1] China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[2] The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with U.S. Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5] ** From the same article, the first of the Memorandum's points was: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** The United States broke this agreement when it played a crucial role in the overthrow Victor Yanukovych, who had been the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. A good article on the United States' role in Yanukovych's overthrow can be seen here: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

No formal deals were made by anyone with power to make them that said NATO would never move an inch to the East. I think you're essentially agreeing with Nationalist, which is basically that if an official agreement isn't made, the United States can't be trusted. As I pointed out in my previous post, the U.S. can't even be trusted if it makes formal deals: https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-broken-before-the-iran-deal I think it's become apparent that the only thing the U.S. respects is military prowess, so Russia is obliging in that regard.

In other words, you're saying that the United States isn't to be trusted unless a formal agreement is made. Reminds me of a movie starring Tom Cruise wherein he's assured that someone's word is "strong as an oak", only to have that word broken later. The truth is, the U.S. can't even be trusted if it makes formal agreements: https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-broken-before-the-iran-deal

Then you have no point. No, my point is as stated: Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. For the audience, I explained the evidence for this to User at great length in post #237.

I will trust the American press far more than Estonian which is dominated by Russia, which has EVERY INCENTIVE to cast the blame on America. Off Guardian is a British Publication, not Estonian. I suspect you're thinking of a different passage from Kit Knightly's article that I've quoted previously. It mentions nothing of the Estonian press, but -does- mention the Estonian government. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** Source: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ If you click on the 2 embedded links, you'll see that the first one is now dead, but the second one actually leads to an article from a mainstream British publication. Quoting: ** Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers Call between EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonia's foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet Paet appears to claim opposition leaders hired the snipers that killed 94 By JOHN HALL Published: 13:14 EST, 5 March 2014 | Updated: 04:28 EST, 6 March 2014 Estonia has confirmed the authenticity of a leaked telephone call between its foreign minister and an EU chief which suggested the sniper killings in Ukraine last month were ordered by the new coalition. The 11-minute call between the EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and her Estonian counterpart Urmas Paet was made on February 25 in the aftermath of the massacre. During the call, Paet claims a doctor told him both protesters and police were shot by snipers during clashes in Kiev allegedly on the orders of the opposition. ** I think it's worth pointing out that the Estonian government, while confirming that the leaked call was genuine, tried to say that what was said wasn't actually said. Continuing from John Hall's Daily Mail article: ** But while the Baltic state acknowledged the audio was genuine, it denied that it had blamed opponents of Ukraine's deposed president for sniper killings during last month's unrest. ** So, as I asked you before, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence? As I also wrote in the past, this UK Daily Mail article wasn't the only article that strongly suggested that Yanukovych's government wasn't behind the killings. An article from Global Research also did that, citing an Italian documentary that interviewed 3 snipers of Georgian nationality who claimed to have participated in the massacre. That article can be seen here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

He did cancel the EU trade agreement, but he had good reason. Quoting from Kit Knightly's Off Guardian article once more: ** SEPTEMBER The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th. Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union. NOVEMBER The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”. “Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against. ** To Yanukovych's credit, despite suspending preparations for the Association Agreement, he still tries to find a middle ground. The West, on the other hand, has other plans. Continuing Kit Knightly's article: ** Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely. Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”. Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”. Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”. **

Oh, YOU "strongly suspect...." I strongly suspect that American military operative Christopher Boyenger was part of U.S. efforts to remove then Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from power one way or the other, yes. Now, while I don't have any hard evidence that Boyenger was in fact working for a U.S. government agency at the time, there is -plenty- of evidence that the U.S. was not only playing a crucial role in orchestrating the Euromaidan event but even going so far as planning on who would replace Yanukovych almost a month before Yanukovych fled Ukraine, fearing for his life. That is certainly the mainstream media's version of events. The Off Guardian article points to evidence that this wasn't actually the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** Source: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ Tell me, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence? Now, the good news is that an Italian documentary did some more investigation of the matter anyway. This is where Christopher Boyenger comes in, but Christopher Boyenger definitely wasn't the only operative involved. I suspect you read little of what I quoted on the matter in the post you're responding to, so I'll do it again to see if this time you absorb more than the simple fact that I suspect American operative Christopher Boyenger was working for some American government agency: ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” **

I think on the whole this is a good thing, but also think US AID did some good things. I don't know enough about it to really defend it though. A paywalled article from a journalist I respect on the subject: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/in-ukraine-usaid-aids-us-hegemony Title and subtitle: ** In Ukraine, USAID aids US hegemony The gutting of USAID will hurt people in need worldwide. Yet as the case of Ukraine shows, the agency has also been used to spread conflict and propaganda. **

True- DUI Offender is the one who posted the NATO article, I've since changed the attribution. I missed the "final agreement" bit. You may have noticed that I never said that the U.S. ever made any "final agreement" with the Soviet Union on not expanding NATO "one inch eastward". That doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't do it. What you call "spamming the thread", I call providing relevant information that you and others just don't want to hear.

Alright, as promised in my previous post, now for the really dark stuff on the Euromaidan massacre. Again quoting from the Off Guardian article: ** 19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace. 20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. ** So, who was behind the Euromaidan massacre? The mainstream media blamed Yanukovych's government, but The Off Guardian article points out that even early on, there was evidence that this wasn't the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” ** Now, what I'd like to focus on here is the American military operative Christopher Boyenger. I strongly suspect he wasn't acting alone, but was in fact part of some U.S. intelligence agency like the CIA. We may never know, but the fact that the Estonian intelligence agency had been informed just a month after the event that there was evidence that it wasn't Yanukovych's government strongly suggests that the U.S. knew as well. What I'd like to know is if they not only knew that Yanukovych's government wasn't responsible for this massacre, but played an integral part in the killings via Christopher Boyenger.

Alright, as promised, here is the quote from the BBC article I referred to in my previous post: ** An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, appeared on Youtube on Thursday. It is not [clear] when the alleged conversation took place. Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus: Warning: This transcript contains swearing. Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think? Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak. Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response. Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs. [snip] Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning? Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment. Pyatt: Yeah I saw that. Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, F*ck the EU. Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place. Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing. Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks. ** I haven't even gotten to the -really- dark stuff yet, the Euromaidan massacre. I'll get into that in the following post.