How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

[ajay0]

Insightful article over Mickhail Gorbachev, Soviet president and Nobel prize winner for peace for his peaceful reforms in eastern europe, being misled by assurances against NATO expansion...

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion | NATO Watch

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner

On the 12 December 2017 the National Security Archive at George Washington University posted online 30 declassified US, Soviet, German, British and French documents revealing a torrent 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. Some of the documents have been publicly available for several years, others have been revealed as a result of Freedom of Information requests for the study. See the briefing here.

US Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 9 February 1990 was only part of a cascade of similar assurances.

As the authors, Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton argue: “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”.

 

[Estro Felino]

1) If the aim were to include Russia as NATO ally/member, then the NATO expansion would be absolutely understandable

2) if the aim is to antagonize, harass, provoke Russia and exclude her from the NATO, the aim is malicious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's consider why NATO was created.
From Wikipedia....
"The history of NATO begins in the immediate aftermath of World War II when British diplomacy set the stage to contain the Soviet Union and to stop the expansion of communism in Europe."

NATO posed no existential threat to USSR / Russia. Can you
imagine France & Italy invading Russia? Absurd. But Russia
still harbors designs to expand in to Europe. So a strong &
expanded NATO makes good sense. BTW, Belarus's Prez
recently aired Russia's plans to invade Moldova.

 

[stvdv]

Insightful article over Mickhail Gorbachev, Soviet president and Nobel prize winner for peace for his peaceful reforms in eastern europe, being misled by assurances against NATO expansion...

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion | NATO Watch

True. NATO was wrong, and did wrong after too

NATO messed up big time, disrespecting Russian leaders so many times. Putin has said it many times, before taking action

NATO is fully responsible for this. Dissing people, disrespecting them, belittling them, as they did to Putin (plenty examples on the net), but Putin did not do that, though he had reason

America should stop slandering Russia.

I heard too many stories now to believe Russia is the bad guy here

 

[stvdv]

NATO posed no existential threat to USSR / Russia. Can you
imagine France & Italy invading Russia? Absurd. But Russia

I remember America seeing threads in Russia's nukes. And constantly brainwashing us with this

Never Russia used nukes, still America kept on spreading false and fake news about Russia

So, be fair and say at least "Russia fears the nukes of NATO and America"

 

[Revoltingest]

True. NATO was wrong, and did wrong aften

NATO messed up big time, disrespecting Russian leaders so many times. Putin has said it many times, before taking action

NATO is fully responsible for this. Dissing people, disrespecting them, belittling them, as they did to Putin (plenty examples on the net), but Putin did not do that, though he had reason

America should stop slandering Russia.

I heard too many stories now to believe Russia is the bad guy here

Russia's feelings are hurt?
Yeah, that's the problem to be solved by bombing
apartment buildings, theaters, stores, & hospitals.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, be fair and say at least "Russia fears the nukes of NATO and America"

This fear is perhaps the only reason that
Europe isn't now part of Russia.
Remember...Russian once conspired with
Hitler to divide up Europe. With Adolph out
of the picture, Russia needn't share.

Putin figured that NATO & USA were weak
willed, & that Ukraine would fall faster than a
prom queen's dress. But it turned out that the
Russian military is a disorganized unmotivated
mess. This could change though. So NATO
better expand & strengthen. Finland & Ukraine
in particular should join.

BTW, on multiple occasions, Russia did nearly
launch nukes against USA. We're all just lucky
that a few sane Ruskies interfered to stop it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The promises not to expand NATO only lasted until 1997, however, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were invited into the alliance. In total, 13 Eastern European states have become NATO members since then. Gorbachev and subsequently Putin have frequently bemoaned the West’s broken promise, with the latter insisting that it fundamentally undermined the fragile trust between an internationally retreating Russia and an ascendant United States.

Except it might not be seen as such, and more about these countries preferring the Western way of life - as to not being under the thumb of some particular country or other, like Russia or the USSR. And the Putin spiel as to such - as to Russia being under threat from the West, is more about how can Russia (and its supposed backward values - supported by a dogmatic church) expand without this being noticed - which is just laughable - and just another nationalistic aim of so many countries and which belongs in the past. Putin doesn't seem to have noticed this, given he can't see beyond the boundaries of Russia and its supposed 'greatness'.

If one wanted a supreme example of a leader who destroyed all of his aims in one bad decision, Putin is it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the American army that has always crossed the Atlantic to fight European armies.
Not the other way around.

True dat.
And it sure scuttled Italy's plan to support Hitler.
Many Europeans don't appreciate the US military's
role in WW2, but I disagree. It was useful. Hitler,
like Putin, is not someone you'd want in Europe.

 

[Estro Felino]

True dat.
And it sure scuttled Italy's plan to support Hitler.
Many Europeans don't appreciate the US military's
role in WW2, but I disagree. It was useful. Hitler,
like Putin, is not someone you'd want in Europe.

Exactly. It was rightful. What I mean is that the NATO should promote peace in Europe. Not doing anything to promote war in Europe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. It was rightful. What I mean is that the NATO should promote peace in Europe. Not doing anything to promote war in Europe.

At the moment, NATO needs to wage war
against Russia to quell the invasions.

Odd....why would Russia want to advertise that
it targets children? Perhaps they hope to strike
fear in Ukrainians, sending them all to other
countries? Perhaps Putin thinks this would make
total takeover easier. Instead, I think such an
outrageous war crime will just inflame & steel
the opposition.
Missile that hit Ukrainian civilian station had "For Children" on it

 

[Estro Felino]

At the moment, NATO needs to wage war
against Russia to quell the invasions.

Odd....why would Russia want to advertise that
it targets children? Perhaps they hope to strike
fear in Ukrainians, sending them all to other
countries? Perhaps Putin thinks this would make
total takeover easier. Instead, I think such an
outrageous war crime will just inflame & steel
the opposition.
Missile that hit Ukrainian civilian station had "For Children" on it

The cold war ended in 1990.
My point is that if the NATO had done anything to include Russia in an alliance, as a member or ally, none of this would have happened.

I think that no war in Europe within the last 150 years was motivated by political reasons. It was always for economic reasons.

 

[Wandering Monk]

At the moment, NATO needs to wage war
against Russia to quell the invasions.

Odd....why would Russia want to advertise that
it targets children? Perhaps they hope to strike
fear in Ukrainians, sending them all to other
countries? Perhaps Putin thinks this would make
total takeover easier. Instead, I think such an
outrageous war crime will just inflame & steel
the opposition.
Missile that hit Ukrainian civilian station had "For Children" on it

Or perhaps Putin is trying to provoke NATO into getting involved in Ukraine in order to motivate Russians and prove his contention that NATO is an existential threat to Russia. But read the articles of the NATO charter:

The North Atlantic Treaty

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Exactly. It was rightful. What I mean is that the NATO should promote peace in Europe. Not doing anything to promote war in Europe.

Have you read the NATO articles? How are they promoting war in Europe?

 

[Revoltingest]

The cold war ended in 1990.
My point is that if the NATO had done anything to include Russia in an alliance, as a member or ally, none of this would have happened.

I think that no war in Europe within the last 150 years was motivated by political reasons. It was always for economic reasons.

It would be odd indeed that NATO, which formed as
a self defense alliance against USSR / Russia would
admit the threat as a member.
Why would Russia want that? Perhaps to attack a
fellow NATO member, but now with Russia having
influence to prevent other NATO members from
defending the attacked country.

Hitler dint have political goals?
Pbbbbbbbbbtttttttttttttttttttt!

 

[Revoltingest]

Or perhaps Putin is trying to provoke NATO into getting involved in Ukraine in order to motivate Russians and prove his contention that NATO is an existential threat to Russia. But read the articles of the NATO charter:

The North Atlantic Treaty

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Putin is carrying the nuclear briefcase around with him now.
Perhaps that's the eventuality he'd like to cause, figuring
that Russia would prevail & profit against a hesitant west.
After all, Russia has long had a cavalier attitude about
radiation dangers.

 

[Estro Felino]

It would be odd indeed that NATO, which formed as
a self defense alliance against USSR / Russia would
admit the threat as a member.
Why would Russia want that? Perhaps to attack a
fellow NATO member, but now with Russia having
influence to prevent other NATO members from
defending the attacked country.

Are you saying that this is the dialogue that would take place?

Dialogue.
Russia: May I join in?
NATO: No...we created NATO exclusively to antagonize you and to wage war against you.
If you and I become friends, the point of NATO's existence disappears.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you saying that this is the dialogue that would take place?

Dialogue.
Russia: May I join in?
NATO: No...we created NATO exclusively to antagonize you and to wage war against you.
If you and I become friends, the point of NATO's existence disappears.

You're mis-stating the purpose, which is to defend against
Russia. To characterize that as waging war without mention
of Russia being the attacker is mischievous.

Russia is dangerous. It long has been. Just ask Finland
& the countries it conquered, & would've conquered if
Hitler hadn't dishonored their agreement to divide up
Europe for themselves.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Are you saying that this is the dialogue that would take place?

Dialogue.
Russia: May I join in?
NATO: No...we created NATO exclusively to antagonize you and to wage war against you.
If you and I become friends, the point of NATO's existence disappears.

None of this is even remotely true. NATO is defensive. Read the charter.

If NATO's purpose was to wage war against Russia, why have they not done so now that Russia is tangled up in Ukraine? A NATO attack on Russia through the Baltics and Poland could cut the Russian supply lines to Ukraine overnight, yet NATO has not undertaken such an attack.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're mis-stating the purpose, which is to defend against
Russia. To characterize that as waging war without mention
of Russia being the attacker is mischievous.

Russia is dangerous. It long has been. Just ask Finland
& the countries it conquered, & would've conquered if
Hitler hadn't dishonored their agreement to divide up
Europe for themselves.

I use Aristotelian logic.
If Russia is a NATO member...how can it be dangerous to the NATO?