WW3 Please SAY NO!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Yeah, if you watched the Dore video that Irv linked to previously you'd think the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand any further to the east of Germany. If that's what you think, "it just means you're [not] educated."

"The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia"

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...prilkramer.pdf

"Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”"

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...achev-says-no/

And an excellent article from a dastardly, not-to-be-trusted MSM

"The Historical Dispute Behind Russia’s Threat to Invade Ukraine"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...invade-ukraine

There is one site that I found that seems to support your view:

"NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard"

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...early#_ednref1

And I like that site because of all the documentation it provides. However, after reading several of the documents the site links to to support the view that Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand, I don't see how they come to that conclusion. I could find no such promise documented in the documents I looked at. So feel free to provide a link to a credible document that supports your "educated" view that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. And no, Dore is not a credible source.

You're first link says: "These assertions were sharply challenged at the time by other observers, including former U.S. policymakers who played a direct role in the German reunification process. George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and James A. Baker." Gee, I guess if those honest boy scouts say it, it must be true!

And you quote...The Brookings Institute, lol - that "humanitarian" think tank that was such a passionate advocate for the Iraq War.

The Yaffa article says: 'In the early nineties, Bill Clinton’s Administration was curious enough to look into the matter, commissioning an investigation on the question of deploying nato troops east of Germany. The takeaway was emphatic: Yeltsin was wrong. The agreement was limited to the role that nato could play in a united Germany, and had nothing to do with other countries in Eastern Europe. American diplomats should “pointedly remind the Russians of this basic fact,” the report said. Another opinion, this time from the German foreign ministry, ultimately agreed, but acknowledged that Russian claims contained a “political and psychological substance we had to take seriously.”'

"The takeaway was"...

The last article yes, does confirm my point of view.

The thing is, the U.S. had Russia down on the mat for years. They meddled in their elections and have also withdrawn from key treaties like the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaties. The U.S. participated in the coup that deposed Yanucovych and has turned a blind eye to the conflict in the Donbas. They've armed Ukraine as Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia's inclusion into NATO was unacceptable. Even if there were no promise, which I believe there was, geopolitically it was damn stupid and arrogant for the U.S. to continue to taunt Russia and ignore the concerns of a fellow nuclear power. What the U.S. has done has encouraged Ukraine to poke the Russian bear, while knowing full well that it would never back it up militarily if anything happened. And that is exactly what is happening. Offensive weapons are currently being placed in Poland and Romania right now.

Scholars like Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer and government officials and former diplomats to Russia have all discussed what I am talking about.

Btw, Dore is an excellent source as he has on journalists like Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald who also corroborate what I am saying here. Dore makes no pretense at being a scholar. But what he is an open, curious human being who is interested in seeking out truth. Pompously dismissing him is a mistake, in my opinion. As far as documents go, the consensus is that while nothing was signed, the promise was made regarding NATO. Clinton was also warned. In this article by FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) https://fair.org/home/calling-russia...-off-the-hook/ Clinton was warned that he was making a grave error:

'In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling "the current US-led effort to expand NATO...a policy error of historic proportions." They predicted:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.'

All of this is not to say that Putin was justified in going to war. But the United States was negligent and arrogant in dismissing Putin's concerns. And that negligence is largely why we are in the situation we are in.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You're first link says: "These assertions were sharply challenged at the time by other observers, including former U.S. policymakers who played a direct role in the German reunification process. George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and James A. Baker." Gee, I guess if those honest boy scouts say it, it must be true!

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.

Originally Posted by jgannon

And you quote...The Brookings Institute, lol - that "humanitarian" think tank that was such a passionate advocate for the Iraq War.

See above.

Originally Posted by jgannon

The Yaffa article says: 'In the early nineties, Bill Clinton’s Administration was curious enough to look into the matter, commissioning an investigation on the question of deploying nato troops east of Germany. The takeaway was emphatic: Yeltsin was wrong. The agreement was limited to the role that nato could play in a united Germany, and had nothing to do with other countries in Eastern Europe. American diplomats should “pointedly remind the Russians of this basic fact,” the report said. Another opinion, this time from the German foreign ministry, ultimately agreed, but acknowledged that Russian claims contained a “political and psychological substance we had to take seriously.”'

Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO

Originally Posted by jgannon

The last article yes, does confirm my point of view.

The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

The thing is, the U.S. had Russia down on the mat for years. They meddled in their elections and have also withdrawn from key treaties like the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaties. The U.S. participated in the coup that deposed Yanucovych and has turned a blind eye to the conflict in the Donbas. They've armed Ukraine as Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia's inclusion into NATO was unacceptable. Even if there were no promise, which I believe there was, geopolitically it was damn stupid and arrogant for the U.S. to continue to taunt Russia and ignore the concerns of a fellow nuclear power. What the U.S. has done has encouraged Ukraine to poke the Russian bear, while knowing full well that it would never back it up militarily if anything happened. And that is exactly what is happening. Offensive weapons are currently being placed in Poland and Romania right now.

Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Scholars like Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer and government officials and former diplomats to Russia have all discussed what I am talking about.

I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Btw, Dore is an excellent source as he has on journalists like Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald who also corroborate what I am saying here. Dore makes no pretense at being a scholar. But what he is an open, curious human being who is interested in seeking out truth. Pompously dismissing him is a mistake, in my opinion. As far as documents go, the consensus is that while nothing was signed, the promise was made regarding NATO. Clinton was also warned. In this article by FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) https://fair.org/home/calling-russia...-off-the-hook/ Clinton was warned that he was making a grave error:

Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.



See above.



Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO



The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.



Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.



I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.




Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

That's right, I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site to throw smoke at what Russian scholars and informed government officials assessed at the time regarding eastward expansion of NATO.

Yes, the fourth link was making the same argument I was making. I guess they were all making it up.

Don't have time to read Paul Bogdanor's tome. I'm guess it corroborates everything you're saying.

Regarding the Yaffa article and quote, takeaways aren't always accurate.

Nice nitpicking of Mearsheimer.

Regardless of all this, what people like Kennan and McNamara were saying in the 90s is coming to pass. NATO began expansion when Russia was in chaos, struggling politically and economically. Putin has been talking about Ukraine for years. The U.S. refusal to engage him and take his concerns seriously played a pivotal role in the present crisis. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that promises were or weren't made ultimately isn't the issue. What is central, and was of concern to scholars like Cohen and the others mentioned earlier is how Russia would react to the encroachment of NATO on it's borders. Their concerns apparently were well-founded. I guess if Putin had talked to you, he never would have been concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Troops stationed in bordering countries whose sole purpose is to engage you militarily, and missiles pointed at you aren't dangerous if someone didn't promise you that they wouldn't put them there. And the U.S. was correct in ignoring Putin's concerns despite his repeated statements and warnings, because they had never made that promise.

Anyway, you can have the last word! I'm here for the baseball cards. Have a good one.

[earlywynnfan]

I have not followed the "whys" of this conflict closely, so forgive my ignorance. But I keep hearing some people say Putin invaded Ukraine because he doesn't want another NATO nation on his border, assuming Ukraine were allowed to join. However, a quick peek at a map shows that if Russia takes over Ukraine, it will then have Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania for next door neighbors.

???

[egri]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I have not followed the "whys" of this conflict closely, so forgive my ignorance. But I keep hearing some people say Putin invaded Ukraine because he doesn't want another NATO nation on his border, assuming Ukraine were allowed to join. However, a quick peek at a map shows that if Russia takes over Ukraine, it will then have Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania for next door neighbors.

???

And he's ignoring that Russia already has NATO neighbors; Kaliningrad is sandwiched in between Poland and Lithuania, and Latvia and Estonia border Russia as well.

[Shoeless Moe]

I say we send The Donald over there.

See if he can talk his boy into ending this.

He does that, he would wrap up the next election.

He brags about the Art of the Deal, this would be the biggest deal he ever closed on if he could pull that off.


That doesn't work maybe we try to get Ovechkin to take him out on the ice, one solid hit into the boards should do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbI55HdqQs

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

That doesn't work maybe we try to get Ovechkin to take him out on the ice, one solid hit into the boards should do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbI55HdqQs

I was going to answer with a really caustic response, but then I decided to watch the video instead and get a good laugh.

Some nice stick work for an old man, but ultimately it's laughable Kim-Jong-Un level ego and demagoguery.

You know if any one of those actual pretty good hockey players so much as stole the puck away from him, they would have had a close relative thrown off a tall building somewhere.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Anyway, you can have the last word!

Wow, that takes me back to, what, elementary school?

Originally Posted by jgannon

I'm here for the baseball cards.

But yet you're here slinging your BS Russian propaganda.

Originally Posted by jgannon

That's right, I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site to throw smoke at what Russian scholars and informed government officials assessed at the time regarding eastward expansion of NATO.

Here you go, trying to change the topic again. Now you're talking about what was assessed at the time regarding the eastward expansion of NATO. We're discussing whether Russia was told by the US that NATO would not expand to the east. You claim that the US told Russia at the time that NATO would not expand to the east. You claim that the promise is an incontrovertible truth.

I'm only asking for proof for that claim. You are providing nothing.

You: Oh, but person X and person Y make that claim also. That confirms it.
Me: But person A and person B say it's not true.
You: You can't believe them, because "I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site[sic]."

That's all you offer.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that promises were or weren't made ultimately isn't the issue.

Uh, yes it is the issue when you and the other Russian Stooge, Irv, come on this baseball card site and claim "The Truth about Ukraine/Russia NOT what you think." And part of the "Truth" is that the US told Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. Thereby justifying Russia attacking Ukraine to keep them out of NATO as we had promised Russia back in 1991. And now, because you can't support that claim, you want to say it doesn't matter?

Russia claims the US and NATO made the promise not to expand eastward. The US denies that claim. You believe Russia. Why? Because the US government lies? Yes, it does lie. So you don't want to believe them because they lie? Does the Russian government lie? I think it does, don't you? Or are you truly a Russian stooge who believes everything they say? If you believe the Russian government also lies, then why do you believe them in this case? Oh right, it doesn't matter whether the claim you and Irv and the Russians made about the alleged promise is true. Everyone is just supposed to buy into the claim because you and Irv believe it.