All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

Some of the video rasheed posted makes attempts at saying that NATO was a bad actor in this whole sordid affair.

Is that true? Did they somehow renege on written agreements> If so, can we look at the specifics?

Also, if so, did NATO expansionism to the borders of Russia JUSTIFY this invasion?

The comments by this MacGregor character are woven together with the words of Chomsky and other leftists in a way to make it seem like they are "of a mind"

ARE they? or is that just some selective editing of various comments to create a narrative?

rasheed?

..

As far as I can tell there is no written agreement for NATO to not expand. There were claims made years ago, and NATO/US spokespeople pushed back then.

So until someone actually shows such a written agreement, and proves it is not a forgery, I would say the historical record so far says this is not true.

But the Russians have been claiming it for quite some time, even though it appears they are lying.

Of course they're lying. No such agreement exists. If it did, NATO would have voted on it....and the whole world would know about it.

Rasheed, naturally, knows full well this is made up nonsense. Remember Step Two?

Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

[old salt]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

afan calls those assurances "a lie", while equating the Budapest Memorandum to an open ended defense treaty as binding as the NATO treaty.

In all 3 cases, the US admins then in power were unable to agree to more binding long term assurances which extended beyond their time in office, thus they were never enacted as treaties.

[Typical Lax Dad]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

afan calls those assurances "a lie", while equating the Budapest Memorandum to an open ended defense treaty as binding as the NATO treaty.

In all 3 cases, the US admins then in power were unable to agree to more binding long term assurances which extended beyond their time in office, thus they were never enacted as treaties.

We lied or broke a promise. Whoop dee damn do….what’s new?

[a fan]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948



But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

[old salt]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948

But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

When govt officials & diplomats meet, official records are kept "for the record". Apparently you don't read links.

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

[a fan]

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

And yet you're here selling me that notes (snicker) from a conference is binding...in any way, shape or form. And I LOVE that you're pretending that you think George Bush speaks for all of NATO. Anything to further your narrative that Putin is good, and everyone else is wrong, and the Ukraine belongs to Putin.

I read the citations. My response is: What the heck are you and Rasheed talking about with this silly, stupid nonsense? One sided diplomatic notes is the same thing as a debated topic by the full membership of NATO in full view of the public to decide an issue with global implications? Yeah. Right.

Anything to justify Putin. Anything. There is no road too low for you.

You don't think Ukraine is a sovereign nation. So....explain to me why the F Russia let them form their own country in 1990-1? Didn't occur to them? Were they too buy following the Dream Team in the Olympics to notice?

You and Rasheed have "notes from diplomats" that explains how that happened?

[MDlaxfan76]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948

But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

When govt officials & diplomats meet, official records are kept "for the record". Apparently you don't read links.

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Apparently, at least according to this source's summary, the "memoranda" are of discussion negotiations, not agreements.

"Assurances" in private negotiations are not legal commitments, they are persuasions to get to an agreement. To provide the space to achieve an agreement. The agreement, if reached, can be binding. But if not actually reached, the "assurances" in that context mean nothing more than effort to reach an agreement not reached. And they were in advance of the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, the party with which these negotiations were happening.

And NATO never reached an agreement with the Soviet Union, nor did the US for that matter.

By contrast, the Budapest Memo, while not a treaty and ultimately not legally binding in its explicit commitments, was indeed a set of clear diplomatic promises between the signatory nations, including the Russian Federation. Note, not Soviet Union. It was a public promise, though, clearly we now understand that such promises cannot be relied upon as binding the way a treaty should be. Of course, treaties get breached as well.

[old salt]

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

And yet you're here selling me that notes (snicker) from a conference is binding...in any way, shape or form. And I LOVE that you're pretending that you think George Bush speaks for all of NATO. Anything to further your narrative that Putin is good, and everyone else is wrong, and the Ukraine belongs to Putin.

I've never said they are binding. I've cited them as reasons why Putin cites uses them as justification for his actions & why the Russian people (& military) support him in doing so. Gorbachev & Yeltsin did indeed receive assurances from then serving Presidents which were later reversed. The official records verify that.

You love the JCPOA & Budapest Memo because you agree with them, yet you invalidate the assurances given by 2 serving Presidents to their Russian contemporaries when you don't agree. Just admit your selective interpretation.

[old salt]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948

But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

When govt officials & diplomats meet, official records are kept "for the record". Apparently you don't read links.

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Apparently, at least according to this source's summary, the "memoranda" are of discussion negotiations, not agreements.

"Assurances" in private negotiations are not legal commitments, they are persuasions to get to an agreement. To provide the space to achieve an agreement. The agreement, if reached, can be binding. But if not actually reached, the "assurances" in that context mean nothing more than effort to reach an agreement not reached. And they were in advance of the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, the party with which these negotiations were happening.

And NATO never reached an agreement with the Soviet Union, nor did the US for that matter.

By contrast, the Budapest Memo, while not a treaty and ultimately not legally binding in its explicit commitments, was indeed a set of clear diplomatic promises between the signatory nations, including the Russian Federation. Note, not Soviet Union. It was a public promise, though, clearly we now understand that such promises cannot be relied upon as binding the way a treaty should be. Of course, treaties get breached as well.

As Bob Gates said, the Russian leaders were "led to believe". That's good enough for Putin.

[MDlaxfan76]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948

But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

When govt officials & diplomats meet, official records are kept "for the record". Apparently you don't read links.

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Apparently, at least according to this source's summary, the "memoranda" are of discussion negotiations, not agreements.

"Assurances" in private negotiations are not legal commitments, they are persuasions to get to an agreement. To provide the space to achieve an agreement. The agreement, if reached, can be binding. But if not actually reached, the "assurances" in that context mean nothing more than effort to reach an agreement not reached. And they were in advance of the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, the party with which these negotiations were happening.

And NATO never reached an agreement with the Soviet Union, nor did the US for that matter.

By contrast, the Budapest Memo, while not a treaty and ultimately not legally binding in its explicit commitments, was indeed a set of clear diplomatic promises between the signatory nations, including the Russian Federation. Note, not Soviet Union. It was a public promise, though, clearly we now understand that such promises cannot be relied upon as binding the way a treaty should be. Of course, treaties get breached as well.

As Bob Gates said, the Russian leaders were "led to believe". That's good enough for Putin.

Again, Soviet leaders, pre dissolution of Soviet Union.
No agreement reached.

The Russian Federation was.a new nation, new leaders, and they negotiated an actual agreement.

As you know, what is "good enough for Putin" is a return to the Soviet Union and full hegemony over all vassal states, and influence over others internationally. Nothing less, and everything towards that goal is merely propaganda.

It doesn't matter to Putin what any predecessor agreed to, nothing less is satisfactory.

And you've bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Of course, Gates suggests that Putin's immediate aspiration was to regain the slavic countries, influence over the rest.

[a fan]

I've never said they are binding. I've cited them as reasons why Putin cites uses them as justification for his actions & why the Russian people (& military) support him in doing so. Gorbachev & Yeltsin did indeed receive assurances from then serving Presidents which were later reversed. The official records verify that.

That's not what Rasheed claimed. And you're trying to move the goalposts. Rasheed claimed WRITTEN AGREEMENT was signed.

He's lying. And you are, too, if that's the claim you're making (you're not)

You love the JCPOA & Budapest Memo because you agree with them, yet you invalidate the assurances given by 2 serving Presidents to their Russian contemporaries when you don't agree. Just admit your selective interpretation.

You're back to telling me that a second hand report in multiple different meetings, on entirely different days, with entirely different leaders, with not one meeting including the full membership of NATO present, and with Soviet reps instead of Russian leaders there for the discussion.....is the same thing as a written agreement between multiple countries in the full light of day.

Buzz off. No one is this stupid.


Wanna know why I like the JCPOA? Iran followed it. Same reason you don't like it.

And where did you get the idea that I like the Budapest Memo? It was a stupid thing to do. Ukraine should have to the US, UK, and Russia to F off.

If they had done that? This war would have never happened, and Ukraine wouldn't need NATO.

[old salt]

Again, Soviet leaders, pre dissolution of Soviet Union.
No agreement reached.

The Russian Federation was.a new nation, new leaders, and they negotiated an actual agreement.

As you know, what is "good enough for Putin" is a return to the Soviet Union and full hegemony over all vassal states, and influence over others internationally. Nothing less, and everything towards that goal is merely propaganda.

It doesn't matter to Putin what any predecessor agreed to, nothing less is satisfactory.

And you've bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Of course, Gates suggests that Putin's immediate aspiration was to regain the slavic countries, influence over the rest.

Yeltsin was a post-Soviet leader.

What I've bought is what motivates Putin & the Russian people (& military) who continue to support him.

Our failure to acknowledge that, & respond accordingly, has made us a proxy enabler of the largest war in Europe since WW II.

Last night on Netflix, I stumbled upon the 2022 German remake of All Quiet on the Western Front. Worth a watch, for perspective.

[MDlaxfan76]

Again, Soviet leaders, pre dissolution of Soviet Union.
No agreement reached.

The Russian Federation was.a new nation, new leaders, and they negotiated an actual agreement.

As you know, what is "good enough for Putin" is a return to the Soviet Union and full hegemony over all vassal states, and influence over others internationally. Nothing less, and everything towards that goal is merely propaganda.

It doesn't matter to Putin what any predecessor agreed to, nothing less is satisfactory.

And you've bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Of course, Gates suggests that Putin's immediate aspiration was to regain the slavic countries, influence over the rest.

Yeltsin was a post-Soviet leader.

What I've bought is what motivates Putin & the Russian people (& military) who continue to support him.

Our failure to acknowledge that, & respond accordingly, has made us a proxy enabler of the largest war in Europe since WW II.

Last night on Netflix, I stumbled upon the 2022 German remake of All Quiet on the Western Front. Worth a watch, for perspective.

I hear it is excellent.

I don't think we've failed to ""acknowledge" "what motivates Putin...and those who "continue to support him".

Indeed, I think most of those who've actually followed Putin's trajectory from soviet spy to virtual dictator understand quite well what his aspirations are. He's been quite clear.

And understanding Russian paranoia about the West is understandable as well.

I think you and many others on the western right have folded in your own aspirations and infused them into Putin's "motivations"...and that's what is naive.

[a fan]

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

You don't think Ukraine is a sovereign nation. So....explain to me why the F Russia let them form their own country in 1990-1? Didn't occur to them? Were they too buy following the Dream Team in the Olympics to notice?

Still waiting for an answer. If you're gonna lecture us on history, tell the whole story.

It would seem that you're wrong. Ukraine isn't traditionally part of Russia. It it was..... in 1990, Ukraine would not have split off. Ukraine would have been called "Russia" starting in 1990.

Got a reason for this? You want to put us in the mind of the Russians, right? And you're claiming that Ukraine is an artificial country, just like Putin, right?

So what happened? Why was Ukraine split off?

[njbill]

Let’s hold a séance and see what Bush would say about these “assurances” if a later day Russia invaded Ukraine and threatened to invade the Baltic states.

Seems pretty obvious that any “assurances” were premised on equal “assurances” from Russia, either explicit or implicit, that Russia would henceforth be a peaceful nation, with no interest in militarily expanding its borders.

Times change. You have to change with them.

[PizzaSnake]

In 1990 & 1993, in official meetings, between US, EU, Russian leaders & officials, assurances were given that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany was reunited. There are official records of those assurances, though no signed documents of agreement were executed. Just official records of the meetings, which afan dismisses as "made up nonsense".

Yep. Were all members of NATO there? Did they vote? Was all this in full view of the public, so that the people that are represented could see these assurances for themselves? Did the press report on these assurances? Were they put in writing and signed by NATO and Russia, as Rasheed claimed? No, no, no, no, and no.

afan calls those assurances "a lie"

This is why you write sh(t down, and sign it. You know, what ordinary folk would call "a contract".

Hmmm. Let me see if I can find one for you. Ah, I got one! Here ya go:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/fil ... 1645824948

But sure, tell me again how you're so off your rocker that you can't tell the difference between what someone "thinks" that George Bush said in a closed, smoke filled room, and "therefore this is a binding agreement with NATO".......and a freaking written document in the full light of day, signed by everyone involved....followed by international press conferences.

So we're back to my Step two: it's 1000% immaterial of this information is true or not. Doesn't matter. It just has to further the narrative.

When govt officials & diplomats meet, official records are kept "for the record". Apparently you don't read links.

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Apparently, at least according to this source's summary, the "memoranda" are of discussion negotiations, not agreements.

"Assurances" in private negotiations are not legal commitments, they are persuasions to get to an agreement. To provide the space to achieve an agreement. The agreement, if reached, can be binding. But if not actually reached, the "assurances" in that context mean nothing more than effort to reach an agreement not reached. And they were in advance of the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, the party with which these negotiations were happening.

And NATO never reached an agreement with the Soviet Union, nor did the US for that matter.

By contrast, the Budapest Memo, while not a treaty and ultimately not legally binding in its explicit commitments, was indeed a set of clear diplomatic promises between the signatory nations, including the Russian Federation. Note, not Soviet Union. It was a public promise, though, clearly we now understand that such promises cannot be relied upon as binding the way a treaty should be. Of course, treaties get breached as well.

As Bob Gates said, the Russian leaders were "led to believe". That's good enough for Putin.

"I'll respect you in the morning."
"It's just a cold sore."
"All highway miles; little old lady drove it to church on Sundays vehicle."

[DocBarrister]

Reports that President Zelensky will visit Washington, D.C. tomorrow.

WASHINGTON — Officials in Washington are preparing for a possible visit from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday, according to five sources familiar with the planning.

Zelenskyy could address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening, three sources said. The five sources stressed that the plans were contingent on security and could still change.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -rcna62662

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Some of the video rasheed posted makes attempts at saying that NATO was a bad actor in this whole sordid affair.

Is that true? Did they somehow renege on written agreements> If so, can we look at the specifics?

Also, if so, did NATO expansionism to the borders of Russia JUSTIFY this invasion?

The comments by this MacGregor character are woven together with the words of Chomsky and other leftists in a way to make it seem like they are "of a mind"

ARE they? or is that just some selective editing of various comments to create a narrative?

rasheed?

..

As far as I can tell there is no written agreement for NATO to not expand. There were claims made years ago, and NATO/US spokespeople pushed back then.

So until someone actually shows such a written agreement, and proves it is not a forgery, I would say the historical record so far says this is not true.

But the Russians have been claiming it for quite some time, even though it appears they are lying.

And an Old Soviet also.

Show us where I said there was a written agreement.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/promi ... t-matters/

Rasheed did; that’s what started this discussion.

[old salt]

The Budapest Memo is no more binding than the JCPOA with Iran. Without Senate ratification as a treaty, it is dependent on the willingness of the President in office to follow through on his predecessors agreements. Diplomats understand that.

You don't think Ukraine is a sovereign nation. So....explain to me why the F Russia let them form their own country in 1990-1? Didn't occur to them? Were they too buy following the Dream Team in the Olympics to notice?

Still waiting for an answer. If you're gonna lecture us on history, tell the whole story.

It would seem that you're wrong. Ukraine isn't traditionally part of Russia. It it was..... in 1990, Ukraine would not have split off. Ukraine would have been called "Russia" starting in 1990.

Got a reason for this? You want to put us in the mind of the Russians, right? And you're claiming that Ukraine is an artificial country, just like Putin, right?

So what happened? Why was Ukraine split off?

...in the 1992 Olympics (winter & summer) Russia & Ukraine were teammates in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Great ics hockey team, they won the gold.

Study up on the Kievan Rus & Novorossiya.

[old salt]

Some of the video rasheed posted makes attempts at saying that NATO was a bad actor in this whole sordid affair.

Is that true? Did they somehow renege on written agreements> If so, can we look at the specifics?

Also, if so, did NATO expansionism to the borders of Russia JUSTIFY this invasion?

The comments by this MacGregor character are woven together with the words of Chomsky and other leftists in a way to make it seem like they are "of a mind"

ARE they? or is that just some selective editing of various comments to create a narrative?

rasheed?

..

As far as I can tell there is no written agreement for NATO to not expand. There were claims made years ago, and NATO/US spokespeople pushed back then.

So until someone actually shows such a written agreement, and proves it is not a forgery, I would say the historical record so far says this is not true.

But the Russians have been claiming it for quite some time, even though it appears they are lying.

And an Old Soviet also.

Show us where I said there was a written agreement.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/promi ... t-matters/

Rasheed did; that’s what started this discussion.

I know. TLD hasn't figured that out.