4 ms·

My quote is from the same interview. I repeat: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years." If that inter

• lisasays 3y ago
  Mmm -- my sense is that you're also "arranging scraps" here to get them to line up and support the narrative that you like. By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is more holistic, and seals the matter. Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink the Soviets from the beginning, per your straw-man argument. But still -- against the spirit of the statements and assurances made at the time, 'twas. Shevardnadze's statements might seem to contradict this, but not really -- Shevardnadze is focusing on the details; Gorbachev is talking about the bigger, "moral" picture if you will.
  • chrysler 3y ago
    And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking. The facts are simple: 1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed. 2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union on possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries. 3. Key members of the Soviet leadership explicitly deny any such assurances. 4. Russia never brought up any such assurances when Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. 5. Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started. What was discussed in 1990: 1. Integration of East German military into NATO structures. 2. Size and composition of German military after reunification. 3. Placement of NATO forces (that is, from the US, UK, and elsewhere) in East Germany. This has nothing to do with NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries. Placement of NATO troops (discussed) and potential members of NATO (not discussed) should not be confused.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • lisasays 3y ago
      Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started. Which can't possibly be the CFE - so which treaty (and which specific provisions of that treaty) are you referring to? Your notion of "conspiracy theory" is plainly at odds with the commonly accepted definition of the term, BTW. But we'll move past that for now.
      • chrysler 3y ago
        I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September. I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster). How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO? According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw Pact countries seeked political, economic and military security through cooperation in international organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO. According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to encircle, attack and destroy Russia.
        • lisasays 3y ago
          So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some. Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process. Official "talks" began much sooner. Already the formation of Visegrád Group in 1991 (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready to integrate into the EU and NATO). Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO"). So right there -- you're way off base. The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic). As to conspiracy theories: the whole point is, what you were referring to was a certain line of (dubious) argumentation or reasoning -- "relying on snippets of facts". Which is certainly very often an aspect of conspiracy theories, but nothing to do with the key substance of the term. No one (except fully deluded Russian apologists by this point) believes in that particular theory you cite. I certainly don't, and don't feel I need to respond to any ridiculous insinuations that I do. Anyway, look -- you're certainly quite adept yourself at pulling up snippets of fact. But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot; and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong). And as a result, this discussion just isn't very productive. So I'm going to have to bow out at this point, and let you hash these topics over in the privacy of your own thoughts. Which is a pity, sort of (since it seems we would probably agree on a lot of basic things about this conflict that other people seem to be horribly confused about -- such as who the aggressor is, and why they started it). But at the end of the day -- not really.