Sign in to follow this  

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard

Recommended Posts

+Mirumir    5,384
Quote

 

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard

 

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

 

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

 

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – 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. 

 

...

 

Document 04

Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.

1990-02-09

 

Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

 

Although heavily redacted compared to the Soviet accounts of these conversations, the official State Department version of Secretary Baker’s assurances to Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze just before the formal meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, contains a series of telling phrases. Baker proposes the Two-Plus-Four formula, with the two being the Germanies and the four the post-war occupying powers; argues against other ways to negotiate unification; and makes the case for anchoring Germany in NATO. Furthermore, Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, “A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. And this would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany’s neighbors to the east.”

 

...

#russiaisrealaggressor

 

Does anyone want to talk about trust?

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,844

So, where is the lack of trust here? They were given assurances, and those assurances were given as promised...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ctebah    3,041
3 hours ago, Mirumir said:

#russiaisrealaggressor

 

Does anyone want to talk about trust?

Trust and NATO don’t go in the same sentence.  Time to break the INF treaty.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
On 12/26/2017 at 2:26 PM, FloatingFatMan said:

So, where is the lack of trust here? They were given assurances, and those assurances were given as promised...

 

This time no one will forget that any type of assurance or guarantee given by a group of western leaders can hardly be worth something which is more than nothing.

 

Iran and North Korea have taken their notes.

 

Everything that we are dealing with now and have dealt before (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine) is easily traced back to these promises made and then broken.

 

And no one will ever be held accountable for the consequences that may yet lead to a WWIII scenario.

 

The Soviet government moved their tanks out of the Eastern Germany because they trusted their Western partners. Because both sides, at that time, envisioned a different world. Think about it. Nothing is now left of either that trust or the image of that new world.

 

Contrary to that, now NATO's tanks are being positioned almost as close to Moscow as the tanks of the Third Reich approached at the pinnacle of their advance during WWII in 1941.

 

The Battle for Moscow was fought at the front 400-600 km away from the city.

 

These days, those NATO tanks stationed in the Baltics are 800 km away from the capital of Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,844

If you really think that NATO tanks are going to roll into red square, then may I suggest seeking some psychiatric help for your clearly bad case of paranoia?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
15 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

If you really think that NATO tanks are going to roll into red square, then may I suggest seeking some psychiatric help for your clearly bad case of paranoia?

That's just too funny because it's the Russian Imminent Threat which is being propagated to the Western audience constantly.

 

Contrary to the Western Ministry of Truth, the Kremlin Propaganda doesn't try to cause panic or exaggerate things...or worse, fool the Russians into attacking a Western European country.

 

There are merely stating the obvious - there are tanks with the NATO logo stationed in the Baltics.

 

Then a Russian goes online to a WSJ/FT/BBC/WAPO/NYT website and reads a headline "Russia is the existential threat, RT is bad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,844

The media might try to peddle it, but no one with at least 2 brain cells to rub together is buying.  Hell, their recent claims that Russia is a threat to the undersea internet cables fell completely flat on their faces... We're just not that gullible, unlike you.

 

Russia is now, and will continue to be, a friend to trade with and sometimes work with on international issues.  I couldn't care less what our respective idiot media or governments try to "scare up", nor do I have anything against you guys at all. No one I know does, either.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+The Evil Overlord    18,121
11 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

That's just too funny because it's the Russian Imminent Threat which is being propagated to the Western audience constantly.

 

Contrary to the Western Ministry of Truth, the Kremlin Propaganda doesn't try to cause panic or exaggerate things...or worse, fool the Russians into attacking a Western European country.

 

There are merely stating the obvious - there are tanks with the NATO logo stationed in the Baltics.

 

Then a Russian goes online to a WSJ/FT/BBC/WAPO/NYT website and reads a headline "Russia is the existential threat, RT is bad".

Personally I think I stand with FFM on this one, Russia as a nation is an ally. All nations have their problems.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
18 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

We're just not that gullible, unlike you.

There goes your pro-Russian bias again. /s

 

Of course, the Russians understand that most of the anti-Russian rhetoric coming from the Western leaders is for the internal consumption and it deals with some imaginary threat that costs more real dollars to contain each year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FunkyMike    1,645

Gorby should have asked for a written document. He really screwed the pooch on that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,844
1 hour ago, Mirumir said:

There goes your pro-Russian bias again. /s

 

Of course, the Russians understand that most of the anti-Russian rhetoric coming from the Western leaders is for the internal consumption and it deals with some imaginary threat that costs more real dollars to contain each year.

 

You seem to believe the BS, therefore that makes you gullible. There's nothing pro or anti Russian about that little fact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
Quote

The US ‘Betrayed’ Russia, but It Is Not ‘News That’s Fit to Print’

 

New evidence that Washington broke its promise not to expand NATO “one inch eastward”—a fateful decision with ongoing ramifications—has not been reported by The New York Times or other agenda-setting media outlets.

 

Media malpractice has various elements—among them, selective use of facts, some unverified, highly questionable narratives or reporting based on those “facts,” mingled with editorial commentary passed off as “analysis,” buttressed by carefully selected “expert sources,” often anonymous, and amplified by carefully chosen opinion page contributors. Throughout is the systematic practice of excluding developments (and opinion) that do not conform to the Times’ venerable motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” When it comes to Russia, the Times often decides politically what is fit and what is not. And thus the most recent but exceedingly important example.

 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
Quote

If Americans cannot rely on the Times and Post, at least in regard to US-Russian relations, where can they seek the information and analysis they need? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    13,052

Your  thesis is based on US SecSta  James Baker's assurance to Gotbacjev there would be no NATO expansion, but in 2014 Gorbachev walked back his earlier claim,

 

http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

 

Quote

The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years.…

 

but assurance military units would not move into Eastern Europe were given 

 

Quote

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. 

 

But of course also in and after 2014 Russia started sending Spetnaz and other operatives into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and in 2015 a Malaysia Airlines MH-17 was shot down with a Buk missile system.

 

Those, repeated threats to Eastern Europe's gas supply, full bore war games along the border and extended bellicosity from Putin caused "the rules" to be....reassessed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
7 hours ago, DocM said:

Your  thesis is based on US SecSta  James Baker's assurance to Gotbacjev there would be no NATO expansion

No, not just Baker's...

 

Quote

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

The problem is two-fold:

 

- None of those worked for NATO;

- No document was signed.

 

Moving the Soviet tanks out of the Eastern Germany was an act of good will.

Quote

A quote please?

Quote

 

But of course also in and after 2014 Russia started sending Spetnaz and other operatives into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and in 2015 a Malaysia Airlines MH-17 was shot down with a Buk missile system.

 

Those, repeated threats to Eastern Europe's gas supply, full bore war games along the border and extended bellicosity from Putin caused "the rules" to be....reassessed.

 

Actually, NATO started accepting former Warsaw pact countries and installing missiles on their territories long before 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    13,052

 

Quote

A quote please?

 

It was right under my link.

 

http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

 

Quote

The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years.…

Quote

Actually, NATO started accepting former Warsaw pact countries and installing missiles on their territories long before 2014.

 

Defensive missiles, targeting Iranian launches. 

 

Putin played them as a threat even as we offered Russia observer status,  demanding the keys to our car so to speak, which I seriously doubt he'd reciprocate wrt  Russian interceptors.  He wanted the issue and to hell with the problem. Now he has to deal with Aegis Ashore and Eastern European countries  buying advanced interceptor missiles on the open market and with no observer status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,384
47 minutes ago, DocM said:

Defensive missiles, targeting Iranian launches. 

Those are defensive missiles which can easily be converted to offensive weapons (simply by loading another type of a nuke in silos) that upset the nuclear balance.

 

The effective range of those installations and radars in Poland overlaps with the Russian territory by several hundred kilometers. Russia responded by putting S-300's in Kaliningrad to make it even.

 

If their claims of the Iranian threat were genuine, they would've accepted the Russian offer to build a joint installation in Azerbaijan that made more sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.