Earlier quoted context omitted.
They gave them up for empty promises from Russia and the West*. I like how you conveniently "forgot" that Russia signed that too. "The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force a…
What security assurances are you talking about, specifically?
Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
331–340 of 428 posts
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, it was NATO that signed an agreement that they won't expand to the east when Russia / USSR agreed to withdraw its army from the East Europe. It was the Russia / USSR that agreed to let Ukraine alone as long as they guarantee human rights and equal status of ethnic Russian / Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine (but majority in East Ukraine and Crimea). It was the Russia and USA that agreed to restrict usage of…
NATO never promised to not expand, see Myth 3 here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...
It says US secretary of state James Baker told Gorbachev NATO forces would not move east from Germany. Then it goes into that there is a lack of formal, legal enforcement of these promises, and how the US changed its mind later. So even this source with its leanings does not say what you say.
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2]. Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adja…
> Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand It's a myth perpetuated by Russia
You may find the accounts from two Ambassadors presented in this write-up interesting: https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
Here's the direct quote from Ambassador Braithwaite's letter. Braithwaite was UK’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russia until 1992.
The assurances Russians point to the following:
Assurances given in 1990:
• James Baker, US Secretary of State, 9 February 1990: “We 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 NATO’s military organization to the East”;
• Helmut Kohl. German Chancellor, 10 February 1990: “We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”
Assurances given in 1991:
• John Major. British Prime Minister, Speaking to Defence Minister Yazov, 5 March 1991: “He did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO;
• Douglas Hurd, British Foreign Secretary, speaking to Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh, 26 March 1991: “[T]here were no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another;”
• Francois Mitterrand, speaking to Mikhail Gorbachev, 6 May 1991: “Each of the [Eastern European] countries I have mentioned will seek to ensure its security by concluding separate agreements. With whom? With NATO, of course. ... I am convinced that is not the right way forward for Europe.” This was, of course, a prediction, not an assurance.
[Author’s note: recently declassified material published by the National Security Archive contains some additional references to similar “assurances.’]
This factual record has not been successfully challenged in the West. The remarks by Major and Hurd are confirmed by British records. I was present on both occasions.
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
NATO never promised to not expand, see Myth 3 here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...
Even your link does not say what you say. It says US secretary of state James Baker told Gorbachev NATO forces would not move east from Germany. Then it goes into that there is a lack of formal, legal enforcement of these promises, and how the US changed its mind later. So even this source with its leanings does not say what you say.
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Americans will start standing in a ration line to kick Russia out of Estonia? Or Ukraine? I agree that getting out of Afghanistan was the right call, it was the horribly mismanaged manner of our leaving that I'm pointing out. We left our own citizens and allies in the country behind almost overnight, with the senior leadership rationalizing that the Afghan national army was going to actually fight, despite all th…
> And Americans will start standing in a ration line to kick Russia out of Estonia? Or Ukraine? Oh yea I doubt it, but if the military goes to war and people start dying who knows how the public will react. If Russia, idk, bombs a US base in Germany that's a totally different ballgame (hence why small contingents of US forces will be deployed to various locations). > We left our own citizens and allies in the country…
Since Iran launched a ballistic missile attack at US bases in Iraq[0], and pretty much nothing happened in response, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about US response to attacks on our bases.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from a post-soviet country, Europeans certainly have a diverse opinion of Russia, but most of it is negative. I don't see how peace could be made given their aggressive foreign policy and continued advances on all fronts that are acceptable. They're pushing their propaganda very hard across the border, and are leaning in hard on the russian speaking populations left in post-soviet countries to screw around.
> I don't see how peace could be made Its certainly not going to be possible for as long as member citizens of Western nations think they have the moral authority to tell Russia what to do .. they really, really don't have that moral authority, especially given the last twenty years of massacring of innocent people that the West continues to sweep under the rug and justify with bleats .. The Russian people know how m…
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, no. The only way for the U.S. military would have been for it to produce better advice for its commander in chief, and for the commander in chief to follow that advice. It failed at both levels. This is definitely not novel. I am basically quoting Clausewitz, which is basically as far as you can go from being novel in the military tradition nowadays. For instance: > We see, therefore, that War is not merely a p…
No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I agree with that and think it's nearly self-evident. You're saying the opposite. You're saying military success relies on political success. That's an entirely different proposition and one I disagree with. > The only way for the U.S. military [to succeed] would…
There is no separation in sucess. If you achieve political sucess, your war has been successful. If you achieve military sucess, that means your political goals are achieved, which means you have political sucess.
The commander in chief is a part of the US military. Commander in chief is a military rank. If the commander in chief failed to lead the war correctly, then the military failed.
You are trying to see a hard dichotomy between both. There isn't. War is part of politics, and politics include war.
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And Americans will start standing in a ration line to kick Russia out of Estonia? Or Ukraine? Oh yea I doubt it, but if the military goes to war and people start dying who knows how the public will react. If Russia, idk, bombs a US base in Germany that's a totally different ballgame (hence why small contingents of US forces will be deployed to various locations). > We left our own citizens and allies in the country…
>If Russia, idk, bombs a US base in Germany that's a totally different ballgame (hence why small contingents of US forces will be deployed to various locations) Since Iran launched a ballistic missile attack at US bases in Iraq[0], and pretty much nothing happened in response, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about US response to attacks on our bases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair but you are not arguing why the events are not to be thought of being correlated. So if the natural gas deal with Germany is settled in EUR that seems to be a good enough reason to piss US off and start a proxy war. Why is the momentum for getting Ukraine to EU so strong now?
EUR (unlike say China's RMB, Cuban pesos or whatever they have in NK for money) is a freely convertible currency. Can you explain the mechanism by which settlements in Euros undermine anything, such that three (mutually confrontational) US administrations engage into conspiracy against Mother Russia? (For the reference, the old pipeline gas was also paid for in Euros) As to momentum for Ukraine ascension to NATO, I w…
I think Germany opposed the reality of Ukraine being in NATO because they understood the reality that this pisses off Russia, their large natural gas provider which benefits no one at this point especially in a world where US sphere of influence isn’t exactly as big as it used to be. Just look at how it all panned out in Afghanistan and Yemen.
Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not looking for expansion outwards. The only real expansion that has happened so far was Crimea, which was part of Russia before, has significant Russian population which at least once voted for independence, but more importantly it is vital for Russian defence on the south.
The Philippines was part of the US back in the day too. Itd also provide a convenient base for countering China. Should the US invade and annex it?