Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

30 years ago today: Kissinger on Russia & NATO expansion Dec. 5, 1994 PBS Newshour, w/ Jack Matlock Video—17 min
YouTube ^ | 12/6/2024 | UCLA IRV

Posted on 12/13/2024 4:06:29 AM PST by Phoenix8

Henry Kissinger and former Ambassador Jack Matlock debate the future of NATO and Russia during the Budapest Summit on Dec. 5, 1994. Robert MacNeil moderates the discussion.

Summary generated by ChatGPT: The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia.

Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances.

Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe.

Produced by Tim Groeling

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: History; Society
KEYWORDS: debate; nato; russia
Amazing, 30 years ago this last week Henry Kissinger debated the US ambassador to Russia about the wisdom of NATO expansion East into the former Soviet Block countries.

Time and a MILLION dead in a current war has proven Kissinger was wrong and Matlock correct. NATO expansion East indeed did have potential dangers.

1 posted on 12/13/2024 4:06:29 AM PST by Phoenix8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8; laplata

I’ll never forget that idiot Globalist goon Henry Kissinger declaring: “Obama is perfectly-positioned to create a New World Order” (2008 or 2009)

I remember thinking how Kissinger would gladly receive Satan’s Antichrist (the Kenyan Usurper sure acts like it - don’t know that he is - just that he acts like it and has demonic power, seemingly)


2 posted on 12/13/2024 4:51:34 AM PST by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the Day's of Lot; They id Eat, They Drank, They Bought, They Sold ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8
I noticed you are are basing your argument on Russia having invaded a country that isn’t a NATO member.

One might argue that it was NATO enlargement (which is the proper term, by the way; only Russian propagandists use “expansion” nowadays) that has prevented Putin from swallowing up the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria.
3 posted on 12/13/2024 5:32:00 AM PST by Apparatchik (Русские свиньи, идите домой!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8

[...Matlock correct...]

From the excerpt- “ Matlock, ... argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union...”

Russia would not allow Ukraine to integrate with the West and invaded to stop it.


4 posted on 12/13/2024 5:39:22 AM PST by Farmerbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8
They ALL knew: https://youtu.be/fIoRKLdwxXA?si=Y_A9xJ_5wwCmXa9i

They simply saw Russia as weak and no longer able or willing to stand up to us.

They thought that after 7 years of massive arming, training, and intel cooperation Ukraine would be powerful enough to where Russia would acquiesce.

We gambled, that's all it really boils down to.

5 posted on 12/13/2024 5:47:16 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8

“Time and a MILLION dead in a current war has proven Kissinger was wrong and Matlock correct. NATO expansion East indeed did have potential dangers.”

Wrong. Putin’s invasion shows why NATO expansion was correct. The old Russian imperialist intentions were not going to go away.

Those intentions demonstrate the myth, the cold war myth, that the western antognist was “The Soviet Union”, when all along, from Putin’s perspective, it was never “The Soviet Union”, it was always Russia.


6 posted on 12/13/2024 5:55:18 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red6; anyone

In 2022 even liberal NPR admitted in this news story NATO expansion was stimulating military reaction from Russia. Ukraine was the line in the sand Russia had drawn.

Russia invaded Ukraine the very day this story was updated:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer


7 posted on 12/13/2024 6:18:58 AM PST by Phoenix8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8

Except that article points out just how disingenuous Putin’s position is.

Baker’s pitch to Shevardnadze and Gorbachev was beyond retarded. It was as dumb as a stump.

He might as well have suggested that the Supreme Soviet admit publicly that it ALREADY couldn’t stop Poland from leaving the Warsaw Pact, joining the EEC, and applying for NATO membership... And was ALREADY dependent on the forbearance of the USA to even maintain the facade of the Kremlin still being able to hold the Iron Curtain up.

Putin cannot bring himself to believe that the USSR was that weak, even though Gorbachev himself confirmed it. The “not one inch” statement was never intended to bind the Warsaw Pact countries post independence; it was kabuki theater to make it look as if Poland needed Russia’s permission to leave the Warsaw Pact until the Soviet leaders could come up with a way to save face.

The minute the ink dried on the Belovezha Accords, the “not one inch” discussion was moot. The geopolitical reality of the end of the Soviet Union replaced the kabuki theater.

The very idea that ANY leaders in independent Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia even wanted to maintain the Warsaw Pact buffer zone let alone thought it necessary to keep the Krauts and Yanks out, is so daft that it’s on a par with resurrecting Bill Gates’ “640mb of ram should be good enough”.

But Putin had to have a Vranyo fiction to justify re-establishing Moscow’s domination of Kyiv, and so an inconsequential draft memo that no sane Soviet leader would ever have signed publicly is allowed to be pitched as relevant.

Putin relied on people being so anti government and anti socialism that they have forced themselves to ignore the fact that the “we were promised not one inch...” is a complete fiction, and pitching it at all after Gorbachev himself debunked it, is completely retarded flat-earth level bullcrap.


8 posted on 12/13/2024 7:18:56 AM PST by MalPearce ("You see, but you do not observe" - Holmes to Watson, A Scandal in Bohemia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8

Finland and Sweden obviously see it differently, Russia invading Ukraine led them to join NATO, and led to other countries that constantly study Russia aggression and empire building to start seriously considering to ask to join, even Switzerland is on that list.

Any NATO nation, including the Baltics and Poland can leave NATO if they think that would make them less likely to have Russia invade them.


9 posted on 12/13/2024 7:24:01 AM PST by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Phoenix8; SaveFerris; Apparatchik; Farmerbob; Red6; Wuli
From the article: "Henry Kissinger and former Ambassador Jack Matlock debate the future of NATO and Russia during the Budapest Summit on Dec. 5, 1994."

You may remember that 1994 was the era of Bill Clinton, and Clinton's response to Russia's objections about NATO enlargement was: Russia should join NATO too!

And Russia did join NATO in the 1990s, including:

  1. 1991 -- Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council

  2. 1994 -- Russia became a NATO Partner for Peace

  3. 1994 -- Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, along with the US and UK guaranteeing Ukraine's security in exchange for Ukraine sending its nukes to Russia.

  4. 1995 -- Russia sent a brigade to serve under NATO in Bosnia.

  5. 1996 - 2013 -- a total of 15 NATO - Russia joint military exercises.

  6. 1997 -- Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, a road map for NATO-Russia cooperation.
    The act had 5 main sections, outlining the principles of the relationship, the range of issues NATO and Russia would discuss, the military dimensions of the relationship, and the mechanisms to foster greater military-military cooperation -- the PJC Permanent Joint Council.

  7. 2000 -- Putin & Clinton discussed Russia's NATO membership.

  8. 2000 -- Putin discussed NATO membership with NATO chief, the UK's George Robertson.

  9. 2002 -- The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was created during the 2002 NATO Summit in Rome.
    The NRC was designed to replace the PJC as the official diplomatic tool for handling security issues and joint projects between NATO and Russia.

  10. 2002 -- Putin himself addressed the NATO Rome summit meeting and, on the matter of Ukraine joining NATO, Putin said:

      "Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the path to ensure its own security.
      I don’t see anything unusual here in principle.
      Or something that would spoil the relations between… Or could possibly spoil relations between Russia and Ukraine.”

      - Vladimir Putin at NATO Summit Meeting in Rome, Italy (May 28, 2002)
By 2004 and the time of Ukraine's Orange Revolution against Putin's stooge-traitor Viktor Yanukovych, Russia's enthusiasm towards NATO began to cool, and with Putin's 2008 invasion of Georgia, NATO began to move toward adding both Georgia and Ukraine as members, despite Putin's objections.

With Putin's 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Russia's relations with NATO turned hostile and have remained so ever since.

But that was not the case at all in the 1990s and early 2000s.

10 posted on 12/13/2024 7:56:09 AM PST by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaveFerris

I remember that.

There is no doubt that the Kenyan has been a major enabler for the Antichrist to come on the scene. Everything he has done has fit into the coming of the Antichrist.


11 posted on 12/13/2024 9:06:24 AM PST by laplata (They want each crisis to take the greatest toll possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phoenix8
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#.WjAX9r_XxYI.twitter


12 posted on 12/13/2024 10:27:30 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson