Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 17 hours ago, robosmith said: it was Yanukovych who reneged on his PROMISED trade partnership with the West to sign a deal with Russia, probably because Putin bribed him. 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”. ** Edited February 10 by Scott75 Added source link 1 Quote
robosmith Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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”. ** 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. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 6 hours ago, robosmith said: 8 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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”. ** 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 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 17 hours ago, User said: On 2/9/2025 at 2:26 AM, Scott75 said: 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. 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. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 17 hours ago, User said: No one with any binding authority gave any binding assurances nor was that the final agreement formalized. 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 Edited February 10 by Scott75 Added information 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 17 hours ago, User said: On 2/9/2025 at 5:32 AM, Nationalist said: This is a terribly thin argument. "We can make deals and do the opposite if the deal was never signed as official." Now why should anyone trust the USA or NATO? 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. Edited February 10 by Scott75 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 13 hours ago, WestCanMan said: On 2/8/2025 at 1:19 PM, robosmith said: Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. 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/ Edited February 10 by Scott75 1 Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 7 hours ago, robosmith said: 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. Scott is a fool. Nobody on this forum takes him seriously. Quote
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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. Assured how, by who, and under what authority or formal agreement? You got nothing. Quote
Nationalist Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said: Scott is a fool. Nobody on this forum takes him seriously. Yet another Libbie pressing the panic button. Fact is, Tweenkie-Poo, millions upon millions already know the complete story and want this tragedy ended. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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. So, you admit no formal agreement was made then? James Baker did not have any authority to make any promises on behalf of America that were binding, he even said as much. Negotiations are just that, negotiations. Until final terms are agreed upon, nothing is binding. 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: In other words, you're saying that the United States isn't to be trusted unless a formal agreement is made. No, I am saying there was no agreement made by anyone with any authority that was formal that said NATO would never move East. Why would the United States not be trusted when the United States made no such deal? Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: Assured how, by who It's all there in post #237. I suspect you never even read beyond the first paragraph of the post. Edited February 10 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 Just now, Scott75 said: It's all there in post #237. I suspect you never even read beyond the first paragraph of the post. If not, why not give it a go? It was rhetorical, meaning that no one with any authority to make such promises made them nor was there any official agreement made. Lets play your dumb game. Me: Hey Scott75, you can have 10% of the Microsoft Corporation for being such a good sport here on this forum. I promise, you will get this tomorrow. Tomorrow comes... no shares given. You: Hey Satya Nadella, where is my 10% of Microsoft?!?!?!? Satya Nadella: Um, WTF are you talking about? You: I was promised 10%, you lied! We had a deal! Microsoft can't be trusted! Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: 2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: Scott is a fool. Nobody on this forum takes him seriously. 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. Edited February 10 by Scott75 1 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 1 hour ago, User said: 3 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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. 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. Quote
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 1 minute ago, Scott75 said: 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. That is a meaningless assurance then. Gorbachev understood this as well. Lets ask him: Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” 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.” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 10 minutes ago, User said: 14 minutes ago, Scott75 said: It's all there in post #237. I suspect you never even read beyond the first paragraph of the post. If not, why not give it a go? 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. 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 9 minutes ago, Scott75 said: 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. 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. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Nationalist said: 26 minutes ago, Scott75 said: 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. 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. Edited February 10 by Scott75 Quote
Nationalist Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 4 minutes ago, Scott75 said: 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. I agree...on both counts. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 15 hours ago, User said: 15 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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. That is a meaningless assurance then. Sadly, I agree with you. U.S. officials' statements are generally worthless. 15 hours ago, User said: Gorbachev understood this as well. Lets ask him: Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” 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.” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ 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 Edited February 11 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 31 minutes ago, Scott75 said: 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. This entire argument is a fabrication of Putins and nothing more than his propaganda to justify his own actions. There were no "West's assurances" what there was is one man in a negotiation making negotiations that when finalized did not say what you are saying. Quote
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 9 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Sadly, I agree with you. U.S. offcials' statements are generally worthless. That was not my statement. But hey... not that you have cared about truth, facts, or being honest in most of your discussions here. 11 minutes ago, Scott75 said: 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: LOL, the "spirit of the treaty" So... there was no formal agreement. Seriously, do you even read this stuff before you spam the forum with it? I already addressed Putin. He is a liar and a thug. You are selling his propaganda here. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: 1 hour ago, Scott75 said: 1 hour ago, User said: It was rhetorical, meaning that no one with any authority to make such promises made them nor was there any official agreement made. 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 Edited February 10 by Scott75 Added information Quote
robosmith Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 5 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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 "Possibly" is the best you got. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.