Kissinger's killing fields

how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"

(1) While there were signed treaty agreements ruling out NATA expansion (beyond Germany) -- notes by Baker (and others) do acknowledge that the Soviets/Russians were left with something of an "understanding" that this wouldn't happen.

For example we have Baker's assurance to 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.”

(2) As Gorbachev himself (whom the other commenter in this thread seems intent on reminding us is still "dead", for some reason) put it: “It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990". Along with other statements that it was a bad idea and unnecessarily provocative.

(3) Unfortunately everything changed with the unequivocal violation of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty 2014, which irrevocably upturned both the 1994 Budapest Memorandum -and- whatever sweet nothings were exchanged by Gorby and Baker (now also quite dead) in 1990. And thoroughly legitimized any means Ukraine might seek to protect itself, including joining NATO if it so wishes -- from that point ever onward.

(4) In any case -- the idea that the arc of events in above in any way comes even close to legitimizing, minimizing or excusing the current mass slaughter that is currently being inflicted on the people of Ukraine; or that is places "blame" on the West, or creates some kind of metaphysical equivalence of imperial powers; or that the best course of action for the Ukrainians at this point is to sit back and accept the designs that that large country to the north has on their territory and their future -- is, in the scheme of things, pure and utter horseshit. Something only a self-deluded intellectual can believe.

It's really quite straightforward, actually.

To whom, documented where? Gorbachev's foreign minister Shevardnadze also gave a lengthy interview denying all those claims when the narrative first surfaced. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

As he points out, NATO membership of Warsaw Pact countries and even then-occupied parts of the USSR (Baltics) was beyond comprehension. There were no such discussions inside the Soviet leadership, within Warsaw Pact, nor with NATO, because they couldn't have imagined that Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself would cease to exist in a very short time.

It's an anachronistic hoax that doesn't fit into the timeline of events.

Its not splitting hairs. International law is not civil contracts, and even in contracts wide classes of important agreements must be in writing with clarity as to essential terms to be binding.

> Yes there are no signed agreements.

Which is really the end of the discussion as to whether there was a durable commitment to the USSR inheritable by any of the USSR’s successor states, individually or collectively. If a signed agreement did exist, we'd have to look at its details to see what its exact scope and temporal parameters and conditions were and whether such heritability made sense, and what commitments the other way were tied to it, and whether it was even logically possible for the putative successor states claiming to inherit the interest to uphold them. But it doesn’t, so we don’t need any further analysis.

Binding, long-term, international agreements heritable by successor states don't come out of private oral assurances that aren’t incorporated into formal international agreements.

Russia trying to conjure such an agreement retroactively after first trying and failing to jump the line and get into NATO ahead of other states in the region is especially brazen, though.

No assurances were written or made in any way, Jeffery Sachs fever dream and Putins imagined grievances don't count as sources.

> I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken.

I see you’re not at all familiar with this conflict nor with the history of Russian Ukrainian relations then.

In fact considering Jeffery Sachs never mentioned this I’m starting to doubt his familiarly with this conflict and it’s history in general too.

The Budapest Memorandum (which is written down btw) was a international agreement where in exchange for Ukraine giving up there nuclear weapons and long range strike capability, Russia, the UK and The USA pledged to the following points.

>> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]

>> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.

>> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

>> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

>> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

This agreement was signed in 1994, well before any invasion and well before any coerced Minsk accords happened.

So considering Russia has been fragrantly violating this agreement and how much you love to bring up agreements that don’t even exist, you must agree that Russia must leave Ukraine right?, under this agreement which is written down they agreed to never violate their sovereignty something they are doing right now.

> I read the two blogs which give different perspectives.

Those perspectives are called reality, something Jeffery Sachs is clearly not very familiar with.

> I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.

To call Vladimir Solovyov media is incredibly generous let’s look at some choice clips from his show shall we.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4

Talks about and to another Putin supporter about completely wiping out Ukraine from the face of the earth.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0

Here he talks angrily about Ukrainian refugees and about not even stopping at Ukraine, clearly a threat to the rest of Europe.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw

Here he lies about only hitting military targets.

Theres thousands more clips, Solovyov is more akin to Jospeh Goebells than to any actual foreign press.