5 ms·

It is all described here in greater detail. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leade

It is all described here in greater detail. 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... The article you cite from the military think tank says clearly that Gorbachev was given assurances. Military think tanks are not generally valid or good sources for such topics.

_kbh_ 3y ago
Gorbachev himself is the source of my article, that is a primary source. You are using a secondary source that talks about the primary source to try and discredit the primary source itself. This doesn’t work and is entirely an underhanded method to try and present non factual information as true. Once again the fact that Sachs does not know this from a primary source is worrying, what else is he entirely unaware of the reality around the situation?.
- kornhole 3y ago
  We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Yes there are no signed agreements. One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. None exist, unlike the assurance that Russia would never invade Ukraine. > Yes there are no signed agreements. Of course there aren't cause it never happened, and was never promised. > One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. There were never any real agreements, to anyone in any way shape or form that constituted and actual agreement that was meant to be enforced, the leader of the country himself has said that already. > That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. No they weren't their leader literally said he knew that wasn't the guarantee, this is more Putin invented fiction to just his imperialistic war of conquest. > If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it. Here's an article that refutes everything he wrote. > https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html Here's another > https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/ https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey... By the way, I looked up Jeffery Sachs cause you seem to love him as a source, so I googled him, turns out he's appeared on Russian propaganda shows hosted by Vladimir Solovyov. Now why would Sachs go on a show that just pure Russian propaganda I wonder?.
    - kornhole 3y ago
      If you are saying that no assurances were made by Western leaders, I am not sure you read the source. I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken. If Russia or China built up Mexico or Canada's military with arms and training and they were hostile to us, I think we would be a little concerned. I read the two blogs which give different perspectives. I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.
      - chrysler 3y ago
        >> If Russia or China built up Mexico or Canada's military with arms and training and they were hostile to us, I think we would be a little concerned. What do you think we should do about Russian nuclear missiles set up in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad enclave (1), while its official state media is calling to nuke London (2) and everyone up to Putin himself (3) are making nuclear threats? (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... (2) https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1624856934795948039 https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/16248569347959480... (3) https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatens-worst-ever-consequences-if-west-intervenes-in-ukraine-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatens-worst-ever-c...
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > If you are saying that no assurances were made by Western leaders, I am not sure you read the source. No assurances were written or made in any way, Jeffery Sachs fever dream and Putins imagined grievances don't count as sources. > I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken. I see you’re not at all familiar with this conflict nor with the history of Russian Ukrainian relations then. In fact considering Jeffery Sachs never mentioned this I’m starting to doubt his familiarly with this conflict and it’s history in general too. The Budapest Memorandum (which is written down btw) was a international agreement where in exchange for Ukraine giving up there nuclear weapons and long range strike capability, Russia, the UK and The USA pledged to the following points. >> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7] >> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. >> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. >> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". >> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9] > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum This agreement was signed in 1994, well before any invasion and well before any coerced Minsk accords happened. So considering Russia has been fragrantly violating this agreement and how much you love to bring up agreements that don’t even exist, you must agree that Russia must leave Ukraine right?, under this agreement which is written down they agreed to never violate their sovereignty something they are doing right now. > I read the two blogs which give different perspectives. Those perspectives are called reality, something Jeffery Sachs is clearly not very familiar with. > I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways. To call Vladimir Solovyov media is incredibly generous let’s look at some choice clips from his show shall we. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4 Talks about and to another Putin supporter about completely wiping out Ukraine from the face of the earth. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0 Here he talks angrily about Ukrainian refugees and about not even stopping at Ukraine, clearly a threat to the rest of Europe. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw Here he lies about only hitting military targets. Theres thousands more clips, Solovyov is more akin to Jospeh Goebells than to any actual foreign press.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    >> One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. To whom, documented where? Gorbachev's foreign minister Shevardnadze also gave a lengthy interview denying all those claims when the narrative first surfaced. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... As he points out, NATO membership of Warsaw Pact countries and even then-occupied parts of the USSR (Baltics) was beyond comprehension. There were no such discussions inside the Soviet leadership, within Warsaw Pact, nor with NATO, because they couldn't have imagined that Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself would cease to exist in a very short time. It's an anachronistic hoax that doesn't fit into the timeline of events.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Its not splitting hairs. International law is not civil contracts, and even in contracts wide classes of important agreements must be in writing with clarity as to essential terms to be binding. > Yes there are no signed agreements. Which is really the end of the discussion as to whether there was a durable commitment to the USSR inheritable by any of the USSR’s successor states, individually or collectively. If a signed agreement did exist, we'd have to look at its details to see what its exact scope and temporal parameters and conditions were and whether such heritability made sense, and what commitments the other way were tied to it, and whether it was even logically possible for the putative successor states claiming to inherit the interest to uphold them. But it doesn’t, so we don’t need any further analysis. Binding, long-term, international agreements heritable by successor states don't come out of private oral assurances that aren’t incorporated into formal international agreements. Russia trying to conjure such an agreement retroactively after first trying and failing to jump the line and get into NATO ahead of other states in the region is especially brazen, though.

_kbh_ 3y ago

Gorbachev himself is the source of my article, that is a primary source. You are using a secondary source that talks about the primary source to try and discredit the primary source itself. This doesn’t work and is entirely an underhanded method to try and present non factual information as true. Once again the fact that Sachs does not know this from a primary source is worrying, what else is he entirely unaware of the reality around the situation?.

kornhole 3y ago
We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Yes there are no signed agreements. One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. None exist, unlike the assurance that Russia would never invade Ukraine. > Yes there are no signed agreements. Of course there aren't cause it never happened, and was never promised. > One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. There were never any real agreements, to anyone in any way shape or form that constituted and actual agreement that was meant to be enforced, the leader of the country himself has said that already. > That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. No they weren't their leader literally said he knew that wasn't the guarantee, this is more Putin invented fiction to just his imperialistic war of conquest. > If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it. Here's an article that refutes everything he wrote. > https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html Here's another > https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/ https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey... By the way, I looked up Jeffery Sachs cause you seem to love him as a source, so I googled him, turns out he's appeared on Russian propaganda shows hosted by Vladimir Solovyov. Now why would Sachs go on a show that just pure Russian propaganda I wonder?.
  - kornhole 3y ago
    If you are saying that no assurances were made by Western leaders, I am not sure you read the source. I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken. If Russia or China built up Mexico or Canada's military with arms and training and they were hostile to us, I think we would be a little concerned. I read the two blogs which give different perspectives. I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      >> If Russia or China built up Mexico or Canada's military with arms and training and they were hostile to us, I think we would be a little concerned. What do you think we should do about Russian nuclear missiles set up in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad enclave (1), while its official state media is calling to nuke London (2) and everyone up to Putin himself (3) are making nuclear threats? (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... (2) https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1624856934795948039 https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/16248569347959480... (3) https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatens-worst-ever-consequences-if-west-intervenes-in-ukraine-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatens-worst-ever-c...
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > If you are saying that no assurances were made by Western leaders, I am not sure you read the source. No assurances were written or made in any way, Jeffery Sachs fever dream and Putins imagined grievances don't count as sources. > I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken. I see you’re not at all familiar with this conflict nor with the history of Russian Ukrainian relations then. In fact considering Jeffery Sachs never mentioned this I’m starting to doubt his familiarly with this conflict and it’s history in general too. The Budapest Memorandum (which is written down btw) was a international agreement where in exchange for Ukraine giving up there nuclear weapons and long range strike capability, Russia, the UK and The USA pledged to the following points. >> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7] >> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. >> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. >> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". >> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9] > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum This agreement was signed in 1994, well before any invasion and well before any coerced Minsk accords happened. So considering Russia has been fragrantly violating this agreement and how much you love to bring up agreements that don’t even exist, you must agree that Russia must leave Ukraine right?, under this agreement which is written down they agreed to never violate their sovereignty something they are doing right now. > I read the two blogs which give different perspectives. Those perspectives are called reality, something Jeffery Sachs is clearly not very familiar with. > I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways. To call Vladimir Solovyov media is incredibly generous let’s look at some choice clips from his show shall we. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4 Talks about and to another Putin supporter about completely wiping out Ukraine from the face of the earth. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0 Here he talks angrily about Ukrainian refugees and about not even stopping at Ukraine, clearly a threat to the rest of Europe. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw Here he lies about only hitting military targets. Theres thousands more clips, Solovyov is more akin to Jospeh Goebells than to any actual foreign press.
- chrysler 3y ago
  >> One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. To whom, documented where? Gorbachev's foreign minister Shevardnadze also gave a lengthy interview denying all those claims when the narrative first surfaced. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... As he points out, NATO membership of Warsaw Pact countries and even then-occupied parts of the USSR (Baltics) was beyond comprehension. There were no such discussions inside the Soviet leadership, within Warsaw Pact, nor with NATO, because they couldn't have imagined that Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself would cease to exist in a very short time. It's an anachronistic hoax that doesn't fit into the timeline of events.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Its not splitting hairs. International law is not civil contracts, and even in contracts wide classes of important agreements must be in writing with clarity as to essential terms to be binding. > Yes there are no signed agreements. Which is really the end of the discussion as to whether there was a durable commitment to the USSR inheritable by any of the USSR’s successor states, individually or collectively. If a signed agreement did exist, we'd have to look at its details to see what its exact scope and temporal parameters and conditions were and whether such heritability made sense, and what commitments the other way were tied to it, and whether it was even logically possible for the putative successor states claiming to inherit the interest to uphold them. But it doesn’t, so we don’t need any further analysis. Binding, long-term, international agreements heritable by successor states don't come out of private oral assurances that aren’t incorporated into formal international agreements. Russia trying to conjure such an agreement retroactively after first trying and failing to jump the line and get into NATO ahead of other states in the region is especially brazen, though.