Posted on 05/19/2022 12:16:02 PM PDT by marshmallow
Is this true?
Sure, so in 1990 the Soviet Union was concerned with NATO expansion into the Soviet Union that was still in existence? That's the nonsense that your arguing.
"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 raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."
Mikhail Gorbachev Oct 16 2014
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Stop being a dummy. Stop being hard headed.
You said: “At a time when Westerners were offering the “guarantees” spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed.”
And the U.S., as recently revealed audio clips WION has, shows verbal agreements were given to Russia at that time when Rusdia agreed to German reunification in exchange for NATO not moving eastwards but this was right BEFORE THEY COLLAPSED and Russia lost its theater of influence.
And the U.S. politicians/NATO took advantage of that, lied through their teeth as corrupt people do and bloodthitsty warmongers pushed eastward.
It’s now been proven Gorby lied, liar.
Since the talks were about German re-unification, the agreement was NATO would not move eastward into the FORMER EAST GERMANY.
In my culture, a man’s word is his bond.
It will be interesting to live in a world in which everyone understands that the word of the Secretary of State means nothing at all.
“Its been covered ad nauseam, there was no promise to not expand NATO,”
You’re more full of poop than a Christmas goose.
I guess so is Gorbachev, who said there was NO PROMISE.
"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 raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."
Mikhail Gorbachev Oct 16 2014
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
That"s fine - a man is free to bind himself when he gives his word. But he certainly can't give a bond for an entire country, simply because he chose to give his word. Or Do you believe that a "man's word" should trump the Constitution?? Were you upset when George Bush refused to abide by the Kyoto Protocol's, even though President Clinton "gave his word" - and signature - that we would? Do you think Trump and the Republicans should have abide by the Paris Accords, because Obama gave his word? If Biden makes a verbal promise to the U.N. to give it $200B a year, and to deploy U.S. troops where and when directed, that we have to abide by that forever because he "gave his word"?
A man is free to give his own word to bind himself. But if he is seeking to bind an entire country, he but must instead follow the laws of his country to make the promise one made on behalf of the nation, not just one guy.
All of a sudden this mute dick head decides to speak for 8 years of Obama the a##clown he kept his mouth shut
The timeline of NATO enlargement contradicts your point.
And yes, Bush’s confession is damning but it isn’t something everybody already didn’t know.
Bush has nothing to “confess” because no promise was ever made.
It’s just your typical Russian whining. Their country is shit. They have no future. They spend their days imagining a glorious past that never existed, making up grievances and creating scapegoats.
Loser mentality!
LOL. Your pathological lying is pathetic. Just like Hitler era neo-Nazi points.
Things have come to a pretty pass when we can’t assume that the Secretary of State, acting in an official capacity, is not acting in the name of the United States.
The title of a very good book by S.E. Hinton about being a teenager on the wrong side of the tracks in Tulsa, OK.
“This whole idea that we somehow broke a binding agreement with the Russians by letting other nations join NATO is absurd.”
100% true. We only broke our word.
America is a used car dealer.
No wonder he let 9/11 happen on his watch.
A verbal assurance by one Administration may "honor bind" the Administration that makes it. It would be a perversion of the Constitution to have it bind future Administrations.
He is acting in the ne.of that Administration. Neither he nor the President has the authority to bind the United States to international agreements on their own. They need Congress or the Senate, that did not happen, and the Russians knew it didn't and wouldn't happen. So, it was understood at the time that it was a short-term assurance at most.
Again, do you think we should have been bound by the Kyoto Protocols and Paris Climate Accord simply because our then current President signed them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.