Posted on 01/19/2023 4:42:04 AM PST by Callahan
Interesting that Medvedev is openly talking about Russia getting defeated in Ukraine
Tom — Russia already lost back in March when Putin’s attempt to make Ukraine a vassal state by capturing Kyiv failed in the battle of Hostomel airport.
Russia also lost it’s plan B - to capture the Black sea seafront of Ukraine. That was cemented with the Ukrainians taking back Kherson.
Russia is in a stalemate over plan C to keep the land bridge to Crimea
False -- Countries have been applying to join NATO as they fear Russian invasion.
They were correct to fear it as Russia invades non-NATO neighbors
False == no promise was made
Gorbachev and the documents show ZERO promise not to enlarge
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR. I was a deputy director on the State Department’s Soviet desk at the time, and that was certainly the point of Secretary James Baker’s discussions with Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.
The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:
1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.
When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech
http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.
Former Soviet President Gorbachev’s View
We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev,http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.
Putin is not stupid, and his aides surely have access to the former Soviet records from the time and understand the history of the commitments made by Western leaders and NATO. But the West’s alleged promise not to enlarge the Alliance will undoubtedly remain a standard element of his anti-NATO spin. That is because it fits so well with the picture that the Russian leader seeks to paint of an aggrieved Russia, taken advantage of by others and increasingly isolated—not due to its own actions, but because of the machinations of a deceitful West.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
to summarize , it means that Soviet forces would withdraw from East Germany, and that no foreign forces would be stationed there afterwards. In other words, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, only the German military would be allowed to be stationed in the former East Germany.
NOTE — not in the former East Germany.
Absolutely NOTHING about going to Poland, the Baltics etc.
So stop repeating the lie about “promised to not go one inch further east”
Euroboy IMO NATO should have been disbanded in 1995, NATO expansion and continued existence is a disaster for the US and it’s taxpayers. Anyone with brain back then knew not disbanding NATO was a poison pill for east-west relations. Madeleine Notsobright was the one pushing NATO expansion. GD her soul.
1. Poland, teh Baltics etc. requested joining the defensive alliance for fear of Russia invading -- they requested and the requests were accepted after they met the criteria
2. Ukraine and Georgia applied in 2008 -they were rejected by Germany and France for "fear of provoking Russia" -- 6 weeks after the rejection, Russia invaded Georgia --> so that puts a lie to "NATO expansion was Russia's red line"
======
Then you talk about the Minsk deal as a chance for Ukraine to prepare it's defense -- they failed miserably against Russia in 2014, but that changed when they had time to prepare for a second Russian invasion in 2022
As shown above, the West did not in any way promise not to let in former Warsaw Pact states if they requested joining NATO.
In 1989 there was no one thinking that the USSR and the Warsaw pact would collapse in the next few years, so that was not even on anyone’s minds, leave alone lips.
The west said that it would respect Ukraine’s borders in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. It did and does that
Russia also promised to respect Ukraine’s borders in 1994 Budapest memorandum — it did not live up to its promise
The USA has influence on Nato members foreign policies, they sell weapons to Nato members. They get Nato members to finance overseas bases and overseas deployed troops that can be used to support American foreign policy goals.
NATO has kept the balance of power in Europe, which has resulted in the US not being dragged into having to actually fight in Europe in a new world war for 80 years. This in turn means that the USA has gotten rich by turning former enemies like Germany and Italy into peaceful trading partners.
Article 5 of the NATO agreement is what pledges all NATO nations to defend any other NATO nation that is attacked.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once: on Sept 12, 2001 less than 24 hours after the US was attacked on 9/11.
Repeat: The *only* time Article 5 was invoked was when America’s NATO allies came to our aid.
NATO sucks, it provokes hostility with the east and costs the US taxpayer a fortune.
Article 5 of the NATO agreement is what pledges all NATO nations to defend any other NATO nation that is attacked.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once: on Sept 12, 2001 less than 24 hours after the US was attacked on 9/11.
Repeat: The *only* time Article 5 was invoked was when America’s NATO allies came to our aid.
Came to our aid. LOL. Thanks but we did almost al the heavy lifting.
“it provokes hostility with the east”
Actually it doesn’t provoke hostility with “the east” - Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran etc. have no problem with NATO.
You mean “Russia”
And the only reason they get “provoked” is that if a country joins NATO, it means Russia can’t invade it
I certainly remember that promise being broadcast on the major news networks at the time.
I guess you want to retort. It's what facists do...
“Interesting that Medvedev is openly talking about Russia getting defeated in Ukraine”
He’s just making sure that the Neocons have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of the stakes. Can’t say that I blame him.
Each NATO country makes an annual contribution to the Direct Budget which is 1.65 billion USD in 2019. The percentage is determined by the Gross National Income of a country; for the US this is about $400 million (with an "m", not a "b")
In addition, each country allocates troops that fall under NATO command or would fall under NATO command in times of crisis or war [determined by the alert status].
European countries and Canada have allocated the bulk of their troops to NATO, the US only a small portion as the rest of US troops is reserved for operations in the Middle East and the Pacific.
As to what the USA gets for the $400 million per year -- as I wrote above, Article 5 of the NATO agreement is what pledges all NATO nations to defend any other NATO nation that is attacked.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once: on Sept 12, 2001 less than 24 hours after the US was attacked on 9/11.
Repeat: The *only* time Article 5 was invoked was when America’s NATO allies came to our aid.
He is just making clear that everyone in Russia knows that Russia is going to be defeated in Ukraine by the Ukrainians
“He is just making clear that everyone in Russia knows that Russia is going to be defeated in Ukraine by the Ukrainians”
Most of the Ukrainians who could fight have been ‘consumed’ already in this war, so if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, it won’t be Ukrainians, and there sure as hell will not be a West left.
Nope — let me repeat once more - the USA is the only country that so far has invoked Article 5, which is what pledges all NATO nations to defend any other NATO nation that is attacked.
They all came to the USA’s side.
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.