WW3 Please SAY NO!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

That's what Hitler said.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

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."

Originally Posted by jgannon

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

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?

[jgannon]

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

What kind of appeasement would you have suggested?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

[gawaintheknight]

Two things. One is that we should maybe think about why, in spite of the risks of provoking Putin that many people are highlighting, Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO anyway. I assume they knew the risks very well, but thought it was still safer than not joining. If NATO doesn't let them join, it sends a message to Putin: we don't care about these countries and won't protect them. That's what he thought was the case with Ukraine, and we can see how that's working out.

Two, the "encircled by NATO" thing is not all that's going on. Putin has a set of ideological beliefs that are driving his actions as well.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/0...ssian-fascism/

Ted

[sbfinley]

Since the bulk of the discussion began on the question of how much value should be placed on the reporting of major journalism outlets (or in Layman’s term: “sheep blindly trust MSM”). I think it is particularly noteworthy that today the New York Times pulled all of its foreign correspondents out of Russia. It has held a continual presence there since 1921 - through the rise of bolshevism, the power grab of Stalin, through the Second World War and the sieges that ground the Nazi war machine to a halt, through the Cold War, until today. A paper with more than 130 Pulitzer Prizes and multiple Peabody awards, that defended itself in multiple Supreme Court cases that lay the basis for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that on at least two occasions has been publicly threatened by the sitting President of the United States of America lowered their presence in Russia to zero. They did it to protect their correspondents from Russia’s new law criminalizing any news the state disagrees with.

The point of news isn’t affirmation of your beliefs, the point is to provide facts that can help you make educated and informed decisions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...eedom.amp.html

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

The point of news isn’t affirmation of your beliefs, the point is to provide facts that can help you make educated and informed decisions.

I believe the problem nowadays lies with the people who watch talking heads/political commentators/opinion people/etc and think that all of that is “news.”

That and they never leave their echo chamber of confirmation bias.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

Aren't you precious?!?

Originally Posted by Kzoo

The Criminal Cabal consists of, among others, the Central Bankers, the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Windsors (some would include the Vatican on this list, to my initial surprise as I'm Catholic).

The Buffett, Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the 'political leader' type folks in our world are simply their foot soldiers carrying out and pushing their agenda towards a One World Government/Global Reset, a cashless Digital Currency, population control, etc.

Hmm, just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

I believe our media is corrupt and biased with a penchant for protecting U.S. interests by creating and pushing false narratives in an effort to make them look all divine and the like so I really have a hard time believing much of anything that we are being told about Putin, Russia, Zelenskyy and the Ukraine.

Just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, this was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but still just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Have people forgotten the level of corruption and meddling the US has done in Ukraine? Or Soros's love of Ukraine?

Why did Obama/Biden allow the Clintons to sell uranium to the Russians?

Why did Biden kill our energy independence, only to buy Russian energy exports?


I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

Much, much more political than my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added"

While climate change should not be political, you think it is. Remember this thread from May 2020:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...+change&page=2

You claimed I believe in climate change because I want to punish, weaken, and control "the people that I hate, the ones that voted for," in YOUR words, "The Orange Meanie." Remember that? YOU brought up politics. Good times, huh?

And your response to Irv's political statement ... crickets.

Very selective of you, don't you think?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.



Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

Infraction given - Politics