3 ms·

You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives. Right away in the second chapter: > To putin it was not so long ago whe

You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives. Right away in the second chapter: > To putin it was not so long ago when NATO agreed not to expand eastward This never happened. There has been no such agreement.

_8j50 4y ago
> This never happened. There has been no such agreement. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-james-baker-helmut-kohl https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-... There is reputable source mentioning when during a negotiation, the US promised in return for a unified Germany there would be no eastward NATO expansion. The argument you probably heard is that this was not a legally binding agreement. However, between sovreign nations, there is no superior authority by which you can determine what is legal or not, there is no rule of law to govern the world, international law boils down to agreements between sovreign nations and while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper it is dishonest to say that a promise made in public by an official representative of the US and NATO is non-binding. If you make a verbal agreement in any other aspect of law and choose to dishonor that agreement, so long as there is provable documentation of your agreement, you are still found liable right? This is the case in just about any country because it is aligned with a basic principle of justice: your word is your bond. > You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives. Please sir/madam, attack my arguments all you want but don't attack my character or intent or downvote me based on false assumptions like that. It goes against the spirit of HN to discourage honest and sincere attempt at discourse like this. I do not know or care if part of what I said aligns with what Russians are saying. My argument is not correct or incorrect because of what Russians think. I provided a rational explanation of my reasoning which you are free to attack. I do not support Russia or their invasions or Putin or Trump or whatever parisan boogeyman you can think of. I made my argument as an individual observing in my limited capacity the facts at hand for which I am glad to be corrected. Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.
- distances 4y ago
  > while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. You know there's a good reason all the HN discussions in this topic get locked down -- they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology. > Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent. I hope you can acknowledge that I'm not attacking you. I don't know you, so I can't know about your intents. The outcome, however, is that you end up repeating Russian propaganda and lies, and that's why you get downvoted.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. Clearly I laid out reasons why there is a promise yet you claim I am fraudulently claiming otherwise? > they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology. I don't give a shit about russian ideology, if you don't care to disagree and correct what I said respectfully it would be better if you said nothing at all. Russians use this reason to justify their actions, I did not justify anything Russia did. You can only join NATO by invitation, when expanding an alliance in a time of peace, it makes sense for the only real enemy of the alliance to fear how they'll fare in the event of a future military conflict no? And NATO knew that and played chicken with a psychotic dictator. You peope that think the way you do are caught up in morality and who is right and wrong. I am talking about what actions led to conflict and how peace can be acheived. I don't care who you blame, it would not be nice if Ukraine is just the start
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      > when expanding an alliance in a time of peace Why did countries join NATO in peacetime? https://i.imgur.com/3RGVziu.jpg https://i.imgur.com/3RGVziu.jpg
- tim333 4y ago
  The letter you link has Baker saying to Gorbachev >And then I put the following question to him Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO independent and with no US forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position ie. he asked in discussions what he'd think of NATO agreeing not to shift east. That is quite different from actually agreeing to do so. I can ask you what would you think of me sending you $1m and that is not the same as me committing to do so.

_8j50 4y ago

> This never happened. There has been no such agreement. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-james-baker-helmut-kohl https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-... There is reputable source mentioning when during a negotiation, the US promised in return for a unified Germany there would be no eastward NATO expansion. The argument you probably heard is that this was not a legally binding agreement. However, between sovreign nations, there is no superior authority by which you can determine what is legal or not, there is no rule of law to govern the world, international law boils down to agreements between sovreign nations and while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper it is dishonest to say that a promise made in public by an official representative of the US and NATO is non-binding. If you make a verbal agreement in any other aspect of law and choose to dishonor that agreement, so long as there is provable documentation of your agreement, you are still found liable right? This is the case in just about any country because it is aligned with a basic principle of justice: your word is your bond. > You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives. Please sir/madam, attack my arguments all you want but don't attack my character or intent or downvote me based on false assumptions like that. It goes against the spirit of HN to discourage honest and sincere attempt at discourse like this. I do not know or care if part of what I said aligns with what Russians are saying. My argument is not correct or incorrect because of what Russians think. I provided a rational explanation of my reasoning which you are free to attack. I do not support Russia or their invasions or Putin or Trump or whatever parisan boogeyman you can think of. I made my argument as an individual observing in my limited capacity the facts at hand for which I am glad to be corrected. Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.

distances 4y ago
> while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. You know there's a good reason all the HN discussions in this topic get locked down -- they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology. > Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent. I hope you can acknowledge that I'm not attacking you. I don't know you, so I can't know about your intents. The outcome, however, is that you end up repeating Russian propaganda and lies, and that's why you get downvoted.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. Clearly I laid out reasons why there is a promise yet you claim I am fraudulently claiming otherwise? > they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology. I don't give a shit about russian ideology, if you don't care to disagree and correct what I said respectfully it would be better if you said nothing at all. Russians use this reason to justify their actions, I did not justify anything Russia did. You can only join NATO by invitation, when expanding an alliance in a time of peace, it makes sense for the only real enemy of the alliance to fear how they'll fare in the event of a future military conflict no? And NATO knew that and played chicken with a psychotic dictator. You peope that think the way you do are caught up in morality and who is right and wrong. I am talking about what actions led to conflict and how peace can be acheived. I don't care who you blame, it would not be nice if Ukraine is just the start
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    > when expanding an alliance in a time of peace Why did countries join NATO in peacetime? https://i.imgur.com/3RGVziu.jpg https://i.imgur.com/3RGVziu.jpg
tim333 4y ago
The letter you link has Baker saying to Gorbachev >And then I put the following question to him Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO independent and with no US forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position ie. he asked in discussions what he'd think of NATO agreeing not to shift east. That is quite different from actually agreeing to do so. I can ask you what would you think of me sending you $1m and that is not the same as me committing to do so.