Possibly , but I also understand that Clinton made those promises to Yeltsin too
As far as I am aware, Gorbachev denied that to be the case.
As far as I know, there were made unofficial guarantees. But they were not made into a pact. Many Political Scientists think they should still count though, if verbal word (i.e. something an official from a state) ought to count for something. Many others disagree. This is a large debate really. But words were said, that is a fact. But no crystal clear guarantees.
(Just read about this last week, some professors debating; had some issue finding that debate right now unfortunately).
1 Like
I could not find it now, but this seems like a decent summary of the issue: https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
1 Like
Iâm sure they could argue they havenât expanded NATO Eastwards, they have expanded North from Greece / Turkey insteadâŚ
Why would Russia care if NATO did expand East? It not like thereâs (ever) going to be scenario where Russia is under threat of invasion.
Ego maybe? Iâm wondering why NATO never invited former Warsaw Pact countries inâŚ
Because they have Great Power ambitions and it constrains them and robs them of influence. Russia fights against the so called âLiberal Orderâ, and any strengthening of that is against its interests.
3 Likes
Ramzy Kadyrovâs gang on the way:
1 Like
But at some point, agreements need to be readdressed. Something agreed 30-40 years ago, may well have been the right thing at the time, but is not the right thing now.
1 Like
Legend
4 Likes
Having neighbours that depend on them more than others favours Russia. They want these former Soviet States to be reliant on them for every single damn thing, so the more help they get from elsewhere, the lesser they need from Russia and that is not good.
2 Likes
On Feb. 9, 1990, Baker said: âWe consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should give a guarantee that the reunification of Germany will not lead to the enlargement of NATOâs military organization to the East.â On the next day, then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: ââWe consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.â
âU.S. Secretary of State James Bakerâs famous ânot one inch eastwardâ 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 âŚ
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 Gatesâs criticism of âpressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldnât happen.â âŚ
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (âI have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wallâ) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests.ââ
3 Likes
The US intel leaked weeks ago seemed to be conspicuously correct. Now remains the final decision for Kreml is they want to push forth with the go ahead after the Olympics.
One of the Western agencies, either the CIA, MI6, (but it could also be leaked by anyone else in the so called 5 eyes, but it is pretty clear it originates there) or someone else, leaked one of the scenarios Russia plans for to Bild. It is catastrophic. It could also be disinformation I guess. I find it likely, and assume it is leaked to penetrate the balloon and make it less attractive a plan to press âgoâ on for Kreml.
Putins Putsch-Plan fĂźr die Ukraine: Pseudo-Parlament und Internierungslager *** BILDplus Inhalt *** - Politik Ausland - Bild.de
And indeed, mobilisation of RosGvardia is in full swing. Their mission parameters are suppression and crowd control. Of course, it is yet possible that Russia just wants the most realistic scare operation in modern history and that itâs all an elaborate ruse for concessions.
Most observers think that nothing big will happen before February 20. Perhaps a few ruses and deceptions (hacking attacks etc, cutting of undersea cables elsewhere, maybe something in the direction of Gotland and Sweden again, with new drone overflights over Swedish nuclear plants and the palace etc etc.), but probably nothing more. They cut our undersea cable on January the 10th, part of the rather obvious âescalate for attention and do stuff elsewhere as well while we negotiate with the US on our demands and look important and imposingâ plan, while having plausible deniability (this is why you use submarines to cut cables).
Example: âmysteriously cutâ 
Surveillance cables mysteriously cut
January 10th? The article says late September they found out, but, it happened on April 3rd; âShips in the area that had their tracking systems activated during a six-hour period on April 3 when the damage is believed to have occurredâ⌠Large fishing vessel area, as well as NATO subs and nearby naval bases; âNot only is the area important as the location for lots of fish breeding, it can also attract military submarines from both the Norwegian Navy, NATO allies and other countries.â Has any evidence been presented since?
There is never evidence of such things, you know that right ? How on earth would you have evidence ? But itâs obvious sabotage by and falls into the pattern of the buildup in April-May (itâs really the same build up now, most of that equipment never left)âŚsomeone.
Concerning the US changing itâs definition of imminent, that is due to Ukrainian complaints since it creates economic anxiety according to them and because imminent is âvagueâ. Some understand it to mean tomorrow or in a couple of days, others in a month or two. Murad Gazdiev blatantly lies when he says the US, or anyone else, has promised an invasion every day. No one has done that and he knows it. But he is an RT guy so will probably post tha kind of non-serious spin.
1 Like
Anyway, I am off. Take care, @football.tiger . I made a mistake when I wrote January the 10th concerning the undersea cables but I am hardly posting unsubstantiated bullshit on this matter in (the overall flashpoint) in general, so take what you will from it and ignore what youâd like. Good night.
2 Likes
And the article you posted says nothing of the sort, it doesnât even mention January 10th.
Then why did you state âtheyâ did?
The build-up of Russian troops had come after Kiev had deployed more forces towards its rebel held Donbas area and had made public statements about regaining it by force. You never mention the size of the Ukrainian contingent (around 120-150,000).
Itâs not about him, but the conversation between Matt Lee and the State Department spokesman. As for lies, Kofman and co. have been saying similar for well over six months, WaPo, NYTs, Guardian, and on and onâŚ
Fair enough, but it takes a rather large leap of faith to get to âRussians!â when it is far more likely been a large fishing trawlerâŚ
@football.tiger hope you donât mind the question, but why are you so fond of defending the Russians?
4 Likes