Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
That's what Hitler said. 
Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.
For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:
"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."
Margolis claims:
"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.
"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.
"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."
Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?
In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.
Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust? |
Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.
Regarding the Hitler and Putin comparison, just because Hitler continued to invade other countries, doesn't mean that is Putin's objective. I think if you read what he has said on the matter, you should agree. That doesn't make him a "beneficent" invader.
For the record, and this goes to everyone here - I am against the invasion. All I have tried to do is discuss why Putin might have made the move. I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.
Another aspect to this reminds me of what Harry Truman used to say, which is that after you defeat an enemy, you have to build them back up again, so as not to create a reason for revenge or retaliation. The U.S. won the Cold War. It completely had the upper hand while Russia went through a decade of internal chaos and weakness. The U.S. during this time proceeded to unnecessarily humiliate Russia and take advantage of their weakness by expanding NATO. Putin came along and was determined to reinstill Russian pride. He watched as NATO continued to expand and the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty. As early as 2007, he declared Ukranian membership in NATO unacceptable. Then U.S. was involved with the Ukranian coup in 2014. Then we unilaterally pulled out of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Seven years of civil war in Ukraine and the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine last November, it would seem finally pushed Putin over the line.
In my opinion, he lost any high ground or argument he had regarding Ukraine once he invaded it. Jingoistic protestations and lack of understanding about geopolitics by most of the crew here notwithstanding, the U.S. definitely incompetently contributed to the invastion.
Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.
Gentlemen - a good day to you all. Let's hope there is a sane ending to what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker the better.