3 ms·

Absolutely. and this is a view shared by prominent US national security officials, that it is the United States that has caused this crisis. https://theanalysi

Absolutely. and this is a view shared by prominent US national security officials, that it is the United States that has caused this crisis. https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-wilkerson-engler/ https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-... Remember, it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union. > Paul Jay >Crazy! Larry, how much of this is driven essentially, really by what domestic politics, that you get this saber-rattle and look all huff and puff on both sides, not just the American and west side, but the same thing goes for Putin, satisfying the nationalist fervor in Russia. And two, and maybe this is the most important thing, continuing this rationale of enormous arms purchases, and NATO helps keep all these countries within at least the Western arms market and mostly the American arms market, but they can’t be serious about actually fighting? They know what a shitstorm that leads to. > Larry Wilkerson >I hope you’re right. The history of warfare, especially major warfare in the last 200 years or so, doesn’t support that logic. Let me go back to something Yves said. I think one of the greatest travesties of US foreign policy in the last 25-30 years, and that’s a lot of things, including the invasion of Iraq, was the violation of Jim Bakker and Eduard Shevardnadze, and ultimately Reagan and Herbert Walker Bush, and Gorbachev’s promise that NATO would not go one step further East if Germany were allowed to reunify and remain in NATO.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union This promise is a myth [1]. At best, it was an informal statement by some guy in the U.S. government [2]. This has been blown out of proportion beyond any semblance to reality by Putin's propaganda. And if it had happened, it would have been an agreement with the Soviet Union. Which does not exist. Russia, in 1994, formally agreed to "respect...Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" and "refrain from the threat or the use of force against...Ukraine," among other things. It has flagrantly broken these agreements. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41311-020-00224-w https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41311-020-00224...
- sc68cal 5y ago
  Citing a blog post by the Brookings Institution is very funny to me. They were one of many think tanks in Washington that built the intellectual groundwork to justify the expansion of NATO in the first place.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Citing a blog post by the Brookings Institution is very funny to me There is no shortage of sources on the ambiguity of this alleged promise [1][2]. More critically, there is a total absence of sources from Putin. Because he doesn't have any. Because when nations agree to things, they do so by issuing public declarations and/or signing treaties. [1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
    - stfods 5y ago
      Absolutely, also that's Russia who doesn't respect even signed agreements. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... .. signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > some guy in the U.S. government With "some guy in the government" being the US secretary of state.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > With "some guy in the government" being the US secretary of state Maybe. The person to whom Baker supposedly made these comments doesn't remember them. The treaty regarding the reunification of Germany, in the context of which these statements were supposedly made, is devoid of any reference to them, as is any other official or public record.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union This promise is a myth [1]. At best, it was an informal statement by some guy in the U.S. government [2]. This has been blown out of proportion beyond any semblance to reality by Putin's propaganda. And if it had happened, it would have been an agreement with the Soviet Union. Which does not exist. Russia, in 1994, formally agreed to "respect...Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" and "refrain from the threat or the use of force against...Ukraine," among other things. It has flagrantly broken these agreements. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41311-020-00224-w https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41311-020-00224...

sc68cal 5y ago
Citing a blog post by the Brookings Institution is very funny to me. They were one of many think tanks in Washington that built the intellectual groundwork to justify the expansion of NATO in the first place.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Citing a blog post by the Brookings Institution is very funny to me There is no shortage of sources on the ambiguity of this alleged promise [1][2]. More critically, there is a total absence of sources from Putin. Because he doesn't have any. Because when nations agree to things, they do so by issuing public declarations and/or signing treaties. [1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
  - stfods 5y ago
    Absolutely, also that's Russia who doesn't respect even signed agreements. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... .. signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
VictorPath 5y ago
> some guy in the U.S. government With "some guy in the government" being the US secretary of state.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > With "some guy in the government" being the US secretary of state Maybe. The person to whom Baker supposedly made these comments doesn't remember them. The treaty regarding the reunification of Germany, in the context of which these statements were supposedly made, is devoid of any reference to them, as is any other official or public record.