7 ms·

> Basically the West including USA and some others promised that NATO would not “move one inch” eastward in return for German unification. Which is not true. h

> Basically the West including USA and some others promised that NATO would not “move one inch” eastward in return for German unification. Which is not true. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/ https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...

avgcorrection 3y ago
So Robert Zoellick claims. But the evidence is against him.[1] > Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner That list includes James Baker, his former boss. [1] 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...
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  And here you have Gorbachev himself, telling that nothing like that was ever said > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
  - lisasays 3y ago
    And yet, in that very same interview, Gorby says: The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. I take his word over yours.
    - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      His words > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Which just confirms, that there was no such agreement.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        Which you've said already, multiple times. But what Gorby said above is much more important than the simple lack of a written agreement.
        chrysler 3y ago
        It's not, if you consider his bio. He had a delusion that he could reform the USSR, make republics sign a new union treaty and maintain Russian dominance over Eastern Europe. Russia - leader, others - serfs who have only as much freedom as Moscow allows. Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire. When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
        lisasays 3y ago
        I don't agree at all with your reading either of his character, or the events of his tenure. As pertains to this matter - I'll go with his version of the events and their significance. You can go along with whatever you like.
        chrysler 3y ago
        >> I'll go with his version of the events and their significance. It's not even his version. You've just cherry-picked a single sentence, attributed significance over all else, and ignore everything else he says, and what other contemporary participants have said, and the historic context of it all.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Yes. I already stated that in my original post. But all of those declassified documents weigh heavier than his words. Who’s next? Bush Sr.?
    - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        > There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history. This is such a pig-headed and unreasonable stance that it doesn’t warrant a real response.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      >> Who’s next? Bush Sr.? Let's see what Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze had to say: 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... Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        > Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. Please don’t lie. Der Spiegel mentions Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said that “NATO will not expand to the east”—who is also mentioned in my link of course—and then Shevardnadze says that: > Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. […] AN EXPANSION OF NATO BEYOND GERMANY’S BORDERS WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION. All-caps is mine since people seem to be hard of hearing or something. > As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. Oof, such a nice attempt at muddying the waters. The intro question does not question the fact that NATO expansion was discussed at all (on the contrary it confirms it); it only asks why it wasn’t demanded in writing. > So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper? Which was already indirectly stated by myself (I said “oral agreement, which I’m sure you can nitpick to death as well).[1] So I see that you are trying to conflate the fact that non-expansion was assented to verbally with the apparent totally unrelated fact that Soviet bigwigs didn’t see the point of worrying themselves about getting any actual guarantees from the Western elites since apparently (them being short-sighted, or not-caring) that wasn’t a real threat or concern to them. These things are completely unrelated. Shevardnadze has, through that interview, affirmed that the Westerners talked to them about non-expansion of NATO. And yet here you come and blurt out that he either wasn’t concerned about NATO expansion, isn’t concerned right now, or both. Huh? That doesn’t contradict anything that I’ve said and is just completely irrelevant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534571

avgcorrection 3y ago

So Robert Zoellick claims. But the evidence is against him.[1] > Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner That list includes James Baker, his former boss. [1] 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...

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
And here you have Gorbachev himself, telling that nothing like that was ever said > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
- lisasays 3y ago
  And yet, in that very same interview, Gorby says: The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. I take his word over yours.
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    His words > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Which just confirms, that there was no such agreement.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      Which you've said already, multiple times. But what Gorby said above is much more important than the simple lack of a written agreement.
      - chrysler 3y ago
        It's not, if you consider his bio. He had a delusion that he could reform the USSR, make republics sign a new union treaty and maintain Russian dominance over Eastern Europe. Russia - leader, others - serfs who have only as much freedom as Moscow allows. Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire. When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
        lisasays 3y ago
        I don't agree at all with your reading either of his character, or the events of his tenure. As pertains to this matter - I'll go with his version of the events and their significance. You can go along with whatever you like.
        chrysler 3y ago
        >> I'll go with his version of the events and their significance. It's not even his version. You've just cherry-picked a single sentence, attributed significance over all else, and ignore everything else he says, and what other contemporary participants have said, and the historic context of it all.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Yes. I already stated that in my original post. But all of those declassified documents weigh heavier than his words. Who’s next? Bush Sr.?
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history. This is such a pig-headed and unreasonable stance that it doesn’t warrant a real response.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    >> Who’s next? Bush Sr.? Let's see what Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze had to say: 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... Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. Please don’t lie. Der Spiegel mentions Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said that “NATO will not expand to the east”—who is also mentioned in my link of course—and then Shevardnadze says that: > Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. […] AN EXPANSION OF NATO BEYOND GERMANY’S BORDERS WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION. All-caps is mine since people seem to be hard of hearing or something. > As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. Oof, such a nice attempt at muddying the waters. The intro question does not question the fact that NATO expansion was discussed at all (on the contrary it confirms it); it only asks why it wasn’t demanded in writing. > So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper? Which was already indirectly stated by myself (I said “oral agreement, which I’m sure you can nitpick to death as well).[1] So I see that you are trying to conflate the fact that non-expansion was assented to verbally with the apparent totally unrelated fact that Soviet bigwigs didn’t see the point of worrying themselves about getting any actual guarantees from the Western elites since apparently (them being short-sighted, or not-caring) that wasn’t a real threat or concern to them. These things are completely unrelated. Shevardnadze has, through that interview, affirmed that the Westerners talked to them about non-expansion of NATO. And yet here you come and blurt out that he either wasn’t concerned about NATO expansion, isn’t concerned right now, or both. Huh? That doesn’t contradict anything that I’ve said and is just completely irrelevant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534571