Posted on 12/31/2022 5:20:20 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Lol!!!
“Well, I will pray for peace”
Yes.
You are unhinged woman
gave them assurances that NATO
No. Don’t believe the Putin psych-op propaganda.
Both Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker repeated have said no assurances were given to Russia that NATO status would NOT be given to bordering nations.
” ...follow the money.”
YES INDEED: follow the money
Putin: Clinton, Obama, Father by & son Biden.
Ukraine was used Putin deep-state agents until now President ZelenskyY is removing political corruption.
“Unhinged”
No.
Just unaffected by Russian propaganda.
They are open to negotiations. But while Russia still controls Ukrainian territory and Putin has a history of reneging on deals, it is not a trustworthy country to negotiate with
Ukraine could negotiate if Russia under Putin was known for keeping true to treaties signed. But it does not.
A suing for peace gives Putin’s Russia time to come back in a few years and attack and destroy again
I wonder…is Russia in the room with us right now? 😳 😥
Prayers up for Russia.
One of the conflicts, historical and present, in which I wish BOTH sides could lose.
Certain people on Freerepublic will forgive them.
They deserve it.
Russians with Attitude Twatter account says (citing Russia’s ministry of defense) Russia did indeed hit Kiev on NYE, in the wake of Ukraine telegraphing hits on Moscow were coming.
But Ukraine’s promised hits on Moscow never happened—giving credence RwA says—to the Russian MoD claims.
James Baker with Gorbachev, 2/9.90:
(copied)
“..Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”
The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany....”
James Baker with Gorbachev, 2/9.90:
(copied)
“..Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”
The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany....”
Well, agitprop gets them running
that’s not what I’ve read. Baker ONLY offered no eastward expansion of Germany, not NATO.
Baker did not have the authority to speak for NATO and I doubt a man as intelligent as he was would pretend he had such authority.
The queer Zelensky makes Ukraine Homosexual friendly... Evil is Evil does.
Out of the shadows and into the light...
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.