4 ms·

> Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? You've fallen for Russian disinforma

> Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany? You've fallen for Russian disinformation. This lie keeps getting spread around and corrected. Baker mentioned this to Gorbachev in preliminary talks for the treaty after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a "what if? what concessions would the USSR then make?" It was then immediately struck down as an option by other US bureaucrats, never made it into the treaty, and Gorbachev never even mentioned it again until 2008 when he said US never promised this but expanding NATO into Baltics and such was against the "spirit" of the talks. One person, even a Secretary of State, spitballing ideas about what a treaty would look like is not even close to any sort of agreement between entire superpowers.

pydry 5y ago
It happened multiple times. It is not a lie, no matter how much the US state department tries to double down on the amnesia. >The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did. https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/ https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-n... Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Probably it would have made no difference anyway. There's no independent court of international law to adjudicate. Treaties and memoranda arent all that different in the end. It could be partly cultural. I've noticed when dealing with Americans the idea that you cant expect people to keep their word if it's not explicitly written into a contract is quite common. It's also idiosyncratically American - I havent noticed this word-is-worthless/contracts-sacrosanct "if we take you for a ride it's your fault" attitude elsewhere.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Russia isn't even holding to an actual legal treaty about respecting the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine and you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework?
  - pydry 5y ago
    The expansion of NATO came first in 97- at a point when Russia was militarily at its weakest, and a drunk American puppet was in charge. Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - eastern europe being a buffer being the presumption built into the negotiations. There was some trust before. There is none now. As it was, the pushback on NATO against the vulnerable, much invaded western border once Russia recovered economic and military strength was inevitable. As inevitable as the NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan when in 2001 the Taliban dared to request evidence and a trial while Americans bayed for blood.
    - felipelemos 5y ago
      > Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - [...] Shifting the blame to a third party is a very biased way of see this.
      - pydry 5y ago
        I wasnt ascribing blame or praise - you must have inferred that. This is simply a reflection of the geopolitical reality.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework ...that didn't happen anyway and are propaganda that exists only to support the Russia violation of their actual treaty with Ukraine.

pydry 5y ago

It happened multiple times. It is not a lie, no matter how much the US state department tries to double down on the amnesia. >The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did. https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/ https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-n... Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Probably it would have made no difference anyway. There's no independent court of international law to adjudicate. Treaties and memoranda arent all that different in the end. It could be partly cultural. I've noticed when dealing with Americans the idea that you cant expect people to keep their word if it's not explicitly written into a contract is quite common. It's also idiosyncratically American - I havent noticed this word-is-worthless/contracts-sacrosanct "if we take you for a ride it's your fault" attitude elsewhere.

reducesuffering 5y ago
> Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are. Russia isn't even holding to an actual legal treaty about respecting the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine and you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework?
- pydry 5y ago
  The expansion of NATO came first in 97- at a point when Russia was militarily at its weakest, and a drunk American puppet was in charge. Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - eastern europe being a buffer being the presumption built into the negotiations. There was some trust before. There is none now. As it was, the pushback on NATO against the vulnerable, much invaded western border once Russia recovered economic and military strength was inevitable. As inevitable as the NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan when in 2001 the Taliban dared to request evidence and a trial while Americans bayed for blood.
  - felipelemos 5y ago
    > Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - [...] Shifting the blame to a third party is a very biased way of see this.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I wasnt ascribing blame or praise - you must have inferred that. This is simply a reflection of the geopolitical reality.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework ...that didn't happen anyway and are propaganda that exists only to support the Russia violation of their actual treaty with Ukraine.