MYTH 1: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War Fact: Such an agreement was never made.
I’m going to be kind and assume some wriggle room in the notion of ‘agreement’.
It’s true there wasn’t a signed treaty to that effect, but neocon assertions that the West didn’t promise the Soviet Union not to expand is, charitably ignorant, or worse lies:
A newly discovered document provides more evidence that Western governments broke their promise not to expand NATO eastward after German reunification.
Notes from a 1991 meeting between top US, British, French, and German officials confirm that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for Central and Eastern Europe.
Germany’s diplomatic representative emphasized that the Soviet Union was promised in 1990 that “we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe” river, in eastern Germany.
The document, which was formerly classified as secret, comes from the British National Archives.
It was made widely known this February by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, but was actually first published by US political scientist Joshua Shifrinson in 2019.
MYTH 2: NATO is aggressive and a threat to Russia Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our members.
This is fiction because NATO military was used to partition Serbia (a move not all EU, or even NATO, members officially support). NATO also involved itself militarily in the Libyan civil war when none of the members of NATO had been attacked. That isn’t defensive by any definition. The fact is that NATO after Clinton and Obama is just a multinational vehicle to bypass American Congressional authorization for going to war.
Republicans in late 90s should have impeached Clinton for violating the War Powers Resolution when Congress failed to authorize his war in Serbia.
Bush, for all his strategic faults, at least got the Congress to authorize both his wars. Clinton and Obama using NATO to avoid this isn’t lost on the rest of the world.
MYTH 3: Ukraine cannot join NATO
Frankly, that is terrible writing. The issue is that everyone has know for decades that Russia would respond to NATO membership for Ukraine as a hostile act. This is made clear in our own leaked diplomatic cables, and even plain commentary by folks like Merkel to the press, ‘Russia would view Ukrainian invitation to NATO as a declaration of war’.
With that full awareness, it’s impossible to view actions of the neocons as nothing but deliberate provocations to bring about this war.
The speed of the pivot from pouring our money into Afghanistan to finding a new war to feed was breathtaking. The Deep State ensures the MIC will eat.
We truly missed an opportunity to ratchet back a new Cold War by not taking the offer to enshrine Ukrainian neutrality (e.g. Austria after WW2) and not ratchet up a new arms race.
MYTH 4: NATO is encircling and trying to contain Russia map
This is laughable. There are trial balloons in the press about a NATO+Japan for crying out loud.
MYTH 5: NATO’s interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Libya prove that the Alliance is not defensive
It’s an absurdity to call those interventions ‘defensive’. British parliament actually investigated the neocon lies about Libya. Here's the Parliament's report, you should actually read it.
Page 14: "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."
U.K. Parliament report details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse.
I won’t argue the point as forum is too limited: 2 credible article sources:
I disagree. The forum exists to review these facts. Hell, someone is reproducing the Civil War here via the NY Times real time accounts on a day by day basis! This place is what we make it.
I'm not sure why you would consider NATO a 'credible' source on NATO.
As for Brookings:
"In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.
This is a lie directly contradicted by evidence I already showed you.
To wit:
Notes from a 1991 meeting between top US, British, French, and German officials confirm that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for Central and Eastern Europe.
Asserting otherwise having been made aware of these previously classified notes is beyond disingenuous. It would be lying.
But you keep doing it.
Thank you for going to the trouble of posting that clear information. I hope some of the defenders of our current insane policy will read and consider what you have so plainly provided, and change their minds.
She should post the original. You refuted nothing with your double talk.
If NATO encroachment is the problem for Russia then why didn’t Russia invade Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Sweden (yet)? Oh, that’s right, NATO is defensive and Russia’s stated and proven belligerence drove Sweden to abandon its cherished and long-standing neutrality and Sweden clamored to join NATO.
Russia loves to send armored columns and steal land and resources. Thus, the invasion of the Republic of Georgia. Thus, the wasted armored column sent toward Kiev. Those two actions had nothing to do with fears of NATO.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. However, I am more inclined to use the NATO site as my source of information.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
Also, I’ll go with Brookings on this:
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/