6 ms·

>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installa

>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad? >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?

hutzlibu 3y ago
"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
- chrysler 3y ago
  >> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. 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... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".
    - chrysler 3y ago
      As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland? And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light. So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > Hans-Dietrich Genscher And all present, past and future politicians in Germany, Poland, US end everywhere else are supposed to be permanently bound by what a former German foreign minister supposedly said before leaving office back in 1992. Makes perfect sense.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    The matter is murky in the details, but it certainly isn't a "conspiracy theory". Not surprisingly -- different participants have different recollections of what was said, and in what context. As a counterpart to the above, we also have Baker's assurances, made to the Soviets at the time “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place". And that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Which certainly sounds like verbal promises that "NATO would not move further east". There is also Gorbachev's famous assessment of the whole matter, after the fact: “It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990". Not that these assurances had the status of signed treaties -- and not that any of this stuff in any way justifies, minimizes or "explain" the current conflict, which as we know has one aggressor and by this point is entirely one-sided. But the statements above are part of the historical record -- not some conspiracy theory, or the inventions of Russian apologists.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  The fact that russia wishes to make some words into existence does not mean they existed.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". That does not make it any binding international agreement, sure. But some of those words existed.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". East in Germany, Context is important, how could the German foreign minister ever promise anything about any other country?.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        Don’t you know? national sovereignty is a myth and great powers such as Russia (lol..) have an inherent right to impose their will on everyone between the Oder and Pacific ocean because mr. Genscher renounced Germany’s claim to Eastern Europe.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This was about easy Germany and never about anything else except in the fever dreams of people like Putin. And on that note NATO has too this day kept its promise regarding east Germany even though the country the promise was made to no longer exists.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > was verbally promised Who cares. Eastern European countries are sovereign and can do as they please if they consider it to be in their national interest. > This does not create trust. It goes both way. Trusting dictators under any circumstances is an exceptionally idiotic thing to do. Also it might be hard to grasp however politicians in in charge to change every few years and beholding them to some “verbal promises” made by their predecessor is absurd.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.

chrysler 3y ago
>> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. 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... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".
  - chrysler 3y ago
    As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland? And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light. So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Hans-Dietrich Genscher And all present, past and future politicians in Germany, Poland, US end everywhere else are supposed to be permanently bound by what a former German foreign minister supposedly said before leaving office back in 1992. Makes perfect sense.
- lisasays 3y ago
  The matter is murky in the details, but it certainly isn't a "conspiracy theory". Not surprisingly -- different participants have different recollections of what was said, and in what context. As a counterpart to the above, we also have Baker's assurances, made to the Soviets at the time “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place". And that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Which certainly sounds like verbal promises that "NATO would not move further east". There is also Gorbachev's famous assessment of the whole matter, after the fact: “It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990". Not that these assurances had the status of signed treaties -- and not that any of this stuff in any way justifies, minimizes or "explain" the current conflict, which as we know has one aggressor and by this point is entirely one-sided. But the statements above are part of the historical record -- not some conspiracy theory, or the inventions of Russian apologists.
KptMarchewa 3y ago
The fact that russia wishes to make some words into existence does not mean they existed.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". That does not make it any binding international agreement, sure. But some of those words existed.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". East in Germany, Context is important, how could the German foreign minister ever promise anything about any other country?.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Don’t you know? national sovereignty is a myth and great powers such as Russia (lol..) have an inherent right to impose their will on everyone between the Oder and Pacific ocean because mr. Genscher renounced Germany’s claim to Eastern Europe.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This was about easy Germany and never about anything else except in the fever dreams of people like Putin. And on that note NATO has too this day kept its promise regarding east Germany even though the country the promise was made to no longer exists.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> was verbally promised Who cares. Eastern European countries are sovereign and can do as they please if they consider it to be in their national interest. > This does not create trust. It goes both way. Trusting dictators under any circumstances is an exceptionally idiotic thing to do. Also it might be hard to grasp however politicians in in charge to change every few years and beholding them to some “verbal promises” made by their predecessor is absurd.