Posted on 02/24/2025 10:09:23 AM PST by Az Joe
Here’s why Ukrainians want security guarantees in a cease-fire deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Never trust a govt that promises you free vodka for life.
Russia (and US and UK) promised to protect Ukraine.
SonRussia attacks the country they promised to provide security for.
It’s as bad as it gets.
Trusting people from the part of Europe is never possible. Industrialized shttholes.
Ping
No matter, the Putrinistas on FR will always support Putrid no matter the facts or what his army does to Ukraine.
Russia usually cites as reasons for invading Ukraine:
1. The continuing expansion of NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, including former Soviet republics, in violation of verbal assurances made by American officials during the German reunification process that NATO would not expand to the East,
2. The argument that the Euromaidan revolution was a coup that established a new geopolitical entity – an anti-Russian regime – with which Russia has no agreements, thus rendering the 1994 Budapest Memorandum null and void.
“Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine”
Yeah, right.
The proposal not to expand NATO eastward, which was one of the ways Western countries took the initiative on the issue of German reunification and reducing the possibility of the Soviet Union’s influence on this process, was based on the provisions of the speech of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Tutzing, announced on January 31, 1990. In it, the minister, among other things, called on NATO to unequivocally state: “no matter what happens in the Warsaw Pact countries, there will be no expansion of NATO territory to the east, that is, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” Genscher’s speech was prepared by him without coordination with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, to whom he was a political competitor on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections and from whom he sought to “seize the laurels of the unifier of Germany”, at the same time, his proposals aroused interest among the leadership of Western countries, which began to consider the possibility of obtaining the consent of the USSR to the unification of Germany in exchange to limit the expansion of NATO.
On February 2, the Minister outlined his plan to US Secretary of State James Baker, and on February 6 — to British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd. Genscher explained that the proposed restriction would be applicable to both the GDR and Eastern European countries. 10 days after his speech in Tutzing, Genscher repeated his words in an interview with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze: “It is clear to us that membership in NATO creates difficult problems. However, one thing is clear to us: NATO will not expand to the east.”
Two days later, Genscher repeats the statement at a press conference with Baker in Washington: “As I said, NATO has no intentions of expanding to the east.”The American-West German position became the basis for negotiations on February 7–10, 1990 with the USSR, which became key in the dispute over the existence of an agreement that followed years later. During these negotiations, representatives of the United States and West Germany have repeatedly linked the unification of Germany with the limitation of NATO expansion. So, on February 9, 1990, at a meeting with Shevardnadze, James Baker stated that the United States was striving for a united Germany that would remain “firmly tied to NATO,” promising at the same time “iron guarantees that NATO jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.” Later that day, at a meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he acknowledged that “It is important for the Soviet Union and other European countries to have guarantees that if the United States maintains its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, there will be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction or military presence by a single inch in the eastern direction”. and, in addition, he asked Gorbachev whether he would prefer a united Germany “outside NATO, completely independent, without American troops, or a united Germany that retains ties with NATO, but with a guarantee that, that the jurisdiction or NATO troops will not extend to the east of the current line.” When Gorbachev replied that “the expansion of the NATO zone is unacceptable,” Baker agreed with this. In response, the head of the Soviet state told Baker that “a lot of what you said seems realistic” and urged him to “think about it.” Baker, at a press conference in Moscow on the same day, made public the resulting exchange, saying that the United States proposed, in order to mitigate the concerns of “those who are east of Germany,” to prevent the expansion of NATO forces in the eastern direction and stated that the unification of Germany, according to the US position, is hardly possible without “certain security guarantees” with regard to the advance of NATO forces or its operation to the east.
Later, in its February 13 press release sent to embassies, the US State Department indicated that “the Secretary of State made it clear that the US supports a united Germany in NATO but is ready to ensure that NATO’s military presence will not expand further to the east.”Baker’s assurances were echoed by a number of other officials. So, on February 9, 1990, a similar guarantee (a united Germany “linked to NATO” but provided that “NATO troops will not go further east than they are located”) was offered by Robert Gates, Deputy National Security Advisor to the US President, in his conversation with the head of the KGB of the USSR, Vladimir Kryuchkov, and he described it as “an impressive offer”; this allowed us to speak of broader support for such than is claimed in a number of works, and conflicts with subsequent statements about the “speculative” nature of the statements.
On February 10, 1990, negotiations took place between the Soviet and West German sides, at which German Chancellor Kohl and German Foreign Minister Genscher gave assurances about the non-expansion of NATO, assuring Shevardnadze that “the membership of a united Germany in NATO raises a number of difficult issues. For us, however, one thing is absolutely clear: NATO will not extend to the east. And, since the absence of NATO expansion is determined, this is true in the general case.” As a result of negotiations with Kohl, the Soviet leadership gave the go-ahead for the creation of a monetary union of the GDR and the FRG, which became the first step towards the unification of Germany. And on February 13, 1990, at a conference in Ottawa, the Soviet leadership agreed to West German proposals for negotiations in the “2+4” format on resolving security issues in connection with the unification of Germany, and, as stated in the diary of Shevardnadze’s assistant, journalist Teymuraz Mamaladze, the day before Baker assured Shevardnadze that “if a united Germany If it remains in NATO, then it will be necessary to take care not to expand its jurisdiction to the East.”
Governments often violate treaties. It makes future treaties very difficult, unless the government which breaks treaty conquers the country they broke the treaty with.
At minimum, a change of government would be required.
We still do not have a treaty with Iran for good reason. They cannot be trusted, and we know it.
---------------------------------------
Yeah, right.
Crazy, just like Putin believing Poland caused WW2
Putin blames Poland for WWII and says Soviet occupation “saved lives” Dec 23, 2019
Vladimir Putin has triggered a diplomatic spat with Poland by saying that it was responsible for causing the Second World War and that the Soviet occupation helped to save lives. The Polish government responded by accusing him of reviving “Stalinist propaganda”.
https://notesfrompoland.com/2019/12/23/putin-blames-poland-for-ww2-and-says-soviet-occupation-saved-lives/
Of course one always tries diplomacy first, unless it is Russia which always tries invasion first.
This is why in an interview Former Soviet leader Gorbachev in 2014 said "“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years... it is a myth that you were betrayed".
Obviously, a German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher can't speak for NATO.
James Baker was negotiating in 1990 on the reunification of Germany, and said, in negotiations, “Not one inch eastwards” in regards to the territory of the former East Germany which is included in a treaty called "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" which forbids foreign troops on the territory of the former East Germany.
Finally, you seem to falsely assume ANYTHING said in negotiations is a promise set in stone vs an actual treaty.
Why is there even a NATO? The USSR is gone. The Russian army is a shadow the the old Red Army. What army Russia has is poorly led, poorly equipped and poorly trained. Even Putin didn’t know how bad it was. We know now.
The USSR could count on Communist Fifth Columnists, today’s Russia couldn’t do that.
“Trusting people from the part of Europe is never possible. Industrialized shttholes.”
The trailer park of Europe, all bad neighbors.
good summary
Posters of the Putin party will protest, but:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-budapest-memorandum-and-u-s-obligations/:
December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future.
As many analysts note, Vladimir Putin may have more at stake in Ukraine than does the West. The United States, however, has a strong interest. That stems not just from twenty-three years of bilateral relations with Kyiv but from U.S. commitments in the Budapest memorandum.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, nuclear arms lay in sites scattered across the former Soviet republics. Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including some 1,900 strategic nuclear weapons designed to strike the United States.
Nothing in the post-Soviet space commanded more attention from the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations than making sure that the Soviet Union’s demise did not increase the number of nuclear-armed states. Washington brokered with Kyiv and Moscow the terms under which Ukraine agreed to eliminate the strategic missiles, missile silos and bombers on its territory and transfer the 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia for disassembly.
A key element of the arrangement—many Ukrainians would say the key element—was the readiness of the United States and Russia, joined by Britain, to provide security assurances. The Budapest memorandum committed Washington, Moscow and London, among other things, to “respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” and to “refrain from the threat or use of force” against that country.
The Kremlin has violated those commitments. Using soldiers in Russian combat fatigues without identifying insignia, whom Mr. Putin later admitted were Russian, Moscow seized Crimea in March.
Russia subsequently encouraged and armed separatists in eastern Ukraine. When the Ukrainian military appeared to gain the upper hand against the separatists, regular Russian army units entered Donetsk and Luhansk to support them.
What part of its commitments to “respect the independence” and “refrain from the threat or use of force” do the Russians not understand?
Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
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.